actions combined with the above noted judicial and legislative recognition of this privilege, overcome any impediment caused by the Advisory Committee’s decision to not list this privilege in its draft. See Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47, 100 S.Ct. 906 (noting that Rule 501 did not freeze the law governing privileges but directed the federal courts to “continue the evolutionary development” of privilege law). Conclusion Given the “overwhelming public interest” in providing physicians with a confidential context in which to evaluate the effectiveness of life-saving techniques and procedures, the Court is compelled to recognize the self-critical analysis privilege in the context of morbidity and mortality conferences and will apply it in this ease. See Harris Methodist, 970 F.2d at 101 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Clearly the public good —
recognizing an overwhelming public interest in promoting improvement in health care through the mechanism of physician peer review recognizing an individuals right of privacy in the content of health records and noting that health records are the property of the health care entity maintaining them holding that the scope of a government employees first amendment rights depends on the balance between the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees holding that the state privilege should not apply when the peer review records sought directly related to the allegations challenging the peer review process recognizing confidentiality essential to function of medical peer review committees and to improvement of health care and protecting the records of such committees from discovery