by the legislature. See Goldman, 151 N.H. at 773-74. II. Confidentiality Citing Goodrow v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 483, 485 (1979), and Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), the respondent asserts that he “has a vested [constitutional] right to maintain the confidences he shared with his treatment team, which cannot be taken away by legislative fiat.” Although any such assertion is belied by his limited waivers of confidentiality discussed below with respect to his asserted contractual rights, we address this argument for guidance in other circumstances where such limited waivers may not exist. We have never recognized a constitutional right to the privacy of medical information on behalf of incarcerated persons and we decline to do so now. But cf. In re Caulk, 125 N.H. 226, 230 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Opinion of the Justices, 123 N.H. 554, 559
holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records recognizing stu dents right to be free of stateoccasioned damage to the students bodily integrity recognizing that the right to be free of stateoccasioned damage to a persons bodily integrity is protected by the fourteenth amendment guarantee of due process recognizing state constitutional right of individual privacy that    may be asserted to prevent unwanted infringements of bodily integrity recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records