Is Lying To Protect Privacy Rights Justified? -- Events Following Linda Mccartney's Death Stir Debate Among Ethicists And Pr Firms

As authorities in Santa Barbara, Calif., verified yesterday that Linda McCartney did not die there as a family spokesman originally claimed, ethicists and public-relations specialists debated a troubling question that has grown out of the controversy: Is it acceptable for celebrities and public figures to lie to protect their privacy?

"This whole episode is really a glimpse into the clash between between two very important moral principles, the notion of privacy and the notion of honesty, and what can happen when those conflict," said ethicist Michael Josephson, president of the Josephson Institute of Ethics in Los Angeles.

"As is so often the case, the lying here made it worse."

A statement from a spokesman for Beatles legend Paul McCartney yesterday appeared to corroborate reports that Linda McCartney died at a family ranch in the Tucson area last Friday, despite the family's earlier claims that she was on vacation in Santa Barbara at the time.

"It was a decoy," family spokesman Geoff Baker admitted. "It was my decision. I said she had died in Santa Barbara, because if I had said where she died it would have been overrun straight away and they needed time, because of their grief, to come back (to England) in private.

"Morally, I have done nothing wrong, and legally I have done nothing wrong. I am just trying to keep this family together," he said.

But the statements intended to insulate the McCartneys instead appeared to backfire. Media reports around the world in the past two days have revisited the circumstances of Linda McCartney's death from cancer, sparking speculation - denied by the family - that the 56-year-old former photographer may have died in an assisted suicide.

Dr. Larry Norton, her New York oncologist, said Wednesday that she died of natural causes related to breast cancer.

The Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department said Wednesday it had opened an investigation to determine if Linda McCartney died within its jurisdiction and whether she was cremated without proper legal authorization. The department was initially prevented from determining whether McCartney had died in Arizona by that state's laws, which keep death certificates confidential.

Those questions appeared resolved yesterday, after Santa Barbara authorities spoke with Norton, the oncologist, and satisfied themselves that she did not die in their county.

As they closed their investigation, sheriff's officials said they did not resent being misled about the death.

"Certainly, this has been a time-consuming matter," Sgt. Jim Peterson said. "But the bottom line is we found out enough information that we're confident that we've done a thorough enough investigation.

"We've never had this (kind of) incident before," he added. "Santa Barbara County is a place where there are lots of high-profile celebrity people, and we respect their privacy. As in any case, we will inquire if a death occurred in our county or not; whether it be a celebrity or not."

Scholars saw a troubling side to this week's episode, noting ethical questions about how celebrities and their representatives go about informing - or misinforming - the public.

Ed Trotter, communications professor at California State University, Fullerton, who coordinates the school's public-relations program, said that although it may be easy to condemn deliberate lying, "there are no easy lessons" in a case like this.

At a time of recent debate over intense scrutiny into the private lives of President Clinton, the late Princess Diana and other public figures, he said, "this is just one piece of a larger discussion about what people really need to know, and who's going to draw the line. Should it be the source, or the media, or the PR person, or a combination? That's something we have to muddle through," Trotter said.

"When is it our business to step into someone's private grief just because we've seen him singing for 30 years?" he asked. "I'm sure it will be debated for a while, but I think there will also be a lot of sympathy for the family's perspective."

Indeed, in Santa Barbara's coffee shops and around its water coolers, that seemed to be the case. Even if area residents were misled, it seems justified, many said.

"I think they deserve their privacy. It was their final days together, and they're entitled to a little peace," said April Myers, 21, a clerk at Starbucks.

"We're all focusing on where did she die, what happened, why did they lie to me?" said family friend Dana Mazzetti, who helped organize a memorial ceremony. "But that's the least important part of it. What's important is to focus on Linda as a woman, as Paul's wife, as a wonderful mother and all the contributions she made with the animal rights and with vegetarianism . . . Let's remember her like that."

Paul McCartney yesterday asked that the public and the media to honor his family's privacy and stay away from the 151-acre ranch outside Tucson that was the apparent site of his wife's death. But at least one helicopter was seen yesterday hovering over the area.

Some public-relations experts, meanwhile, had advice for the ex-Beatle legend.

"If I were McCartney, I would fire the (PR) firm," said Carolyn Cline, a University of Southern California journalism professor who specializes in public relations and ethics. With the media fairly tame in its pursuit of the story, she said, "I don't see privacy as the issue here. The code of ethics is that there's really no justification for misleading the press and the public. There was no public service gained by this."

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.