this circuit has repeatedly interpreted the supreme court's decision in wayland vs ralph as establishing a right to privacy and the non disclosure of personal information over two decades ago and why there's a west valley city this court stated that there is prison is a unique situation is that you have a person in confinement let's say let's say terminal let's say he has developed pneumonia and the the h little contact with his family but he's become seriously ill is there any way that the prison in the humanitarian sense reach out to a member of the family and say your brother is critically ill he's not expected to live but i think he would benefit perhaps from a little solace in the little bit of companionship a lawyer to be in to ask are there any exceptions that were the prisoners and tried to reach out under that kind of circumstance even though the illness is benign it's not what would be a common law really hard to speak because precisely is lawyers who read the case years later would like the cases well what the posting counsel is saying is that the cases reported around is going to cause a lot of difficulty motional and otherwise here the disease is one that with evoke sympathy not repulsion and court protected i found that prescription drug records were also protected and stated that even though it had not previously extended this right to privacy and medical information to prescription drug records that had no problem deciding in that case that they were entitled to the same constitutional privacy protection because of the confidential information that the that can be disclosed from knowing the kinds of prescriptions that an individual is taking and cancer is well perhaps not a l of privacy means everyone working on the case knows what they're talking about and disclosure is something that was considered most of them discussing at the time and would not apply here the question is whether it's clearly established and we make distinctions all the time and i'm sorry that i'm saying that it's it's not unusual for us to look at the factual situation and say me treated it like higher matter any of it is one of the language sure we may want to be more expensive in our attitude but but it gets pretty tough what are the standards that you would apply if you were writing the opinion today assuming that we ruled in your favor how would you write it how would you how would you cast but the whole  distinction well they made a distinction based upon the stigma that was placed on a aids cases at the time that those cases we're first to god of the public anyway if i'm looking at that prong of the of the issue our law in this circuit has already said that if  now what would give this court the right to to make a variance where we've already clearly said it's a constitutional right and that the parameters of if it's  there's that protection now we've established those two you would have us then conditionally stablish an area the saying well it's not well established in that let's say it's cancer well the next case it would come along with the appendicitis or tonsillectomy so it would never be necessarily well established until we had gone through all back to that right no right division i have a right to privacy in my medical condition and of the drugs i take turkish doesn't have the right to say oh yeah you don't you have this right but you don't have it here you don't have it there you can excite here you can exercise it there so it is a very difficult thing if we are going to turn around and say oh well a prisoner has a right to privacy in a medical condition and her prescriptions but not x and not y and not see or we become not even super legislators declared that there was a right to privacy and medical conditions we just say well it's going to have a harsh result in the given case but it's a ri than your suggestion that we are under qualified under qualified immunity standards and go around writing the law i'm right and i think what we have to think about here we have to think about  anybody have any other questions for me thank you thank you would you incorporate th