concurring.
We granted defendants’ motion for leave to appeal, — N.J. -(1991), to consider whether a patient who alleges that he received an HIV-positive blood transfusion may obtain limited discovery from the donor when the patient also alleges that a blood bank negligently supplied the blood. In holding in favor of such discovery, the Appellate Division relied on N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9, which permits disclosure for good cause of information regarding a person who has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or is infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). 244 N.J.Super. 281, 582 A.2d 307 (1990). This Court now affirms on the opinion below. I concur with that *330opinion and write separately to emphasize the Court’s reliance on the statutory balance of the donor’s privacy interest, the plaintiffs’ interest in full discovery and compensation for the injuries they have sustained, and society’s interest in a safe and adequate blood supply. Our reliance on N.J.S.A. 26:50-9 is consistent with prior decisions of this Court and illustrates the proper roles of the legislature and the judiciary in cases involving law and bioethics.
-I-
Because this matter arises on an interlocutory appeal from a discovery order and cross-motions for summary judgment, the record, although voluminous, is less complete than it would be after a plenary hearing. From the record, the following facts appear. In August 1984 plaintiff William Snyder underwent open heart surgery at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Paterson. In the course of the surgery, he received transfusions of several units of blood products, including one of platelets, unit 29F0784. Defendant Bergen Community Blood Center (BCBC) had collected blood for that unit at a bloodmobile in Hackensack. BCBC is a member of defendant American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), a non-profit association of non-profit banks, the members of which collect about one-half of the nation’s blood supply. The American Red Cross collects the other half.
According to BCBC, it made available to donors an AIDS information sheet, captioned “AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL BLOOD DONORS.” The sheet described AIDS:
WHAT IS AIDS?
AIDS or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is a condition in which the body’s normal defense mechanisms against certain diseases or conditions are reduced. As a result, patients often develop unusual infections such as Pneumocystis pneumonia or a rare form of skin cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma. There is no known cause, preventative measure, laboratory test, or treatment for AIDS.
*331It also identified those at risk:
WHO IS AT RISK?
It is known, however, that certain groups are at a high risk of contracting the disease. These include:
* those with symptoms and signs suggestive of AIDS;
* sexual partners of AIDS patients;
* sexually active homosexual or bisexual men with multiple partners;
* Haitian entrants to the United States;
* present or past abusers of intravenous drugs;
* patients with hemophilia; and
* sexual partners of individuals at increased risk of AIDS.
The sheet concluded with the request:
Your blood bank is asking that you voluntarily refrain from donating at this time if you are in any of the currently identified high-risk groups. Although the majority of members of these groups are not carriers, there is presently no means of detection and thus no mechanism to identify those few who may be at risk.
BCBC also asserts that it took a medical history from donors asking twenty-nine questions, including:
Are you in general good health?
Ever injected yourself with any drugs?
Signs of swollen glands or Kaposi’s sarcoma?
The apparent purpose of these questions was to discover whether the donor was a member of the “identified high risk groups,” which include intravenous drug users and sexually active homosexual and bisexual males. Concerning the last question, Kaposi’s sarcoma is “a manifestation of a new immunodeficiency syndrome and since has been the initial manifestation of AIDS in approximately 30% of reported cases. AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma has remained predominantly a disease of homosexual and bisexual men, although it has been reported among all high-risk groups.” R. Gray & L. Goody, Attorney’s Textbook of Medicine para. 46.51 at 46-48 (3d ed. 1988). According to BCBC, the donor gave negative responses to each of the questions.
The parties disagree on the effectiveness of then-existing tests to determine if blood products were infected with HIV, the cause of AIDS. They agree, however, that starting in 1985 the enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay screening test (the ELISA test) enabled blood banks to screen blood for the HIV *332virus. Except for a two-to-six-month “window” following a person’s exposure to the HIV virus, the ELISA test reveals whether a prospective donor has an HIV infection. As part of a nationwide “look back” program conducted by AABB, BCBC ascertained in 1986 that a donor who had contributed to unit 29F0784 was HIV positive. ' Under the program, when a prospective blood donor tested HIV positive, the blood bank conducted a review to determine whether the donor had made donations before the development of the ELISA test. BCBC informed St. Joseph’s that one of the donors to unit 29F0784 had tested HIV positive. St. Joseph’s notified Snyder’s doctor, who in turn informed Snyder in 1987. Snyder, who was not otherwise at risk, tested HIV positive.
Alleging that the transfusion of platelets had infected him, Snyder and his wife, Roslyn, instituted this action in 1989 against BCBC, its director, St. Joseph’s Hospital, and others. Plaintiffs allege in part that BCBC was negligent in its screening of donors. BCBC denies both that it was negligent and that unit 29F0784 was HIV infected, notwithstanding BCBC’s discovery in 1986 that one of the contributors was HIV positive. Thus, both negligence and causation are at issue. As part of their pre-trial discovery, plaintiffs seek limited discovery of the donor on both issues. In particular, they want to discover whether in 1984 the donor was HIV infected and whether BCBC followed its own screening procedures. Plaintiffs do not seek the identity of the donor or of the donor’s acquaintances, nor do they intend to sue the donor.
After deleting the donor’s name and address, BCBC produced the donor’s records, but it opposes further discovery. The Law Division found that the donor’s interest in confidentiality outweighed plaintiffs’ interest in obtaining the information. Finding also that “[t]here is no basis to conclude that [BCBC] did .something wrong,” the court denied plaintiffs’ motion.
The Appellate Division granted plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory relief and reversed. Although it left it to the trial court *333to determine the extent of discovery, the Appellate Division held that “some access [to the donor] under careful court supervision is appropriate and justifiable.” 244 N.J.Super. at 296, 582 A.2d 307. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Pressler suggested that either a “veiled” deposition or one conducted on written interrogatories might provide plaintiffs adequate discovery and also protect the donor’s privacy interests. Id. at 297, 582 A.2d 307.
-II-
In the absence of legislative guidance, courts in other states have divided over the rights of an AIDS-infected blood recipient to make discovery of the donor. Some courts have denied access to the donor because of the donor’s privacy interests, see Bradway v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 132 F.R.D. 78 (N.D.Ga. 1990); society’s interest in an adequate blood supply, see Coleman v. American Red Cross, 130 F.R.D. 360 (E.D.Mich.1990); Taylor v. West Penn Hosp. Central Blood Bank, 48 Pa.D. & C.3d 178 (Common Pleas 1987); the physician-patient privilege, see Krygier v. Airweld, 137 Misc.2d 306, 520 N.Y.S.2d 475 (Sup.Ct.1987); or a combination of these factors, see Doe v. American Red Cross, 125 F.R.D. 646 (D.S.C.1989); Rasmussen v. South Fla. Blood Serv., 500 So.2d 533 (Fla.1987); Laburre v. East Jefferson Gen. Hosp., 555 So.2d 1381 (La.1990). Other courts, however, have found support for limited discovery of a donor in the public policy favoring compensation of injured parties, the plaintiff’s correlative interest in full discovery, and society’s interest in a safe blood supply. See Boutte v. Blood Sys., Inc., 127 F.R.D. 122 (W.D.La.1989); Mason v. Regional Medical Center of Hopkins County, 121 F.R.D. 300 (W.D.Ky. 1988); Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Center v. District Court, 763 P.2d 1003 (Colo.1988); Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Center, 386 Pa.Super. 574, 563 A.2d 531 (1989), appeal granted, 525 Pa. 618-20, 577 A.2d 890-91 (1990); Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center v. Houston, 745 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.Ct.App.1988), Tarrant County Hosp. Disk v. Hughes, 734 S.W.2d 675 (Tex. *334Ct.App.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1065, 108 S.Ct. 1027, 98 L.Ed.2d 991 (1988).
Commentators also have divided on the issue. Some favor disclosure. They argue that discovery need not excessively threaten the donor’s privacy interest, Turkington, Confidentiality Policy for HIV-Related Information: An Analytical Framework for Sorting Out Hard and Easy Cases, 34 Vill. L.Rev. 871 (1989); Note, Aids Related Litigation: The Competing Interests Surrounding Discovery of Blood Donors’ Identity, 19 Ind.L.Rev. 561 (1986), and that limited disclosure of the donor’s identity does not jeopardize the nation’s blood supply, Jenner, Identifying HIV-infected Blood Donors, 25 Trial 47 (June 1989). Others oppose disclosure of the donor’s identity. They contend that such disclosure will deter potential donors from giving blood, thereby reducing the blood supply. E.g., Note, AIDS: Anonymity In Donation Situations— Where Public Benefit Meets Private Good, 69 B.U.L.Rev. 187 (1989). Still others argue that the donor’s privacy interest, the physician-patient privilege, and the needs of the nation’s blood supply weigh against discovery. Bollow & Lapp, Protecting the Confidentiality of Blood Donors’ Identities in Aids Litigation, 37 Drake L.Rev. 343 (1987-88).
Unlike other courts, we have the benefit of legislative guidance. In the AIDS Assistance Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 26:5C-1 to -14, the Legislature proclaimed: “The effective identification, diagnosis, care and treatment of persons who have contracted [AIDS], is of paramount public importance.” N.J.S.A. 26:5C-2a. The Legislature recognized that “the outbreak of AIDS has reached alarming proportions because of its highly contagious nature with New Jersey ranking fourth in the nation of the number of reported cases.” N.J.S.A. 26:5C-2g. Finally, the Legislature found that AIDS “may be spread through body secretions, especially blood and semen,” N.J.S.A. 26:5c-2b, and “is now striking * * * persons who have received blood transfusions * * N.J.S.A. 26:5C-2d.
*335Like other cases involving law and bioethics, this case raises questions not only about competing legal and ethical interests, but also about the proper roles of courts and legislatures in considering those interests. In a morally pluralistic society, the legislature, consisting of the elected representatives of the people, is better suited than the judiciary to weigh the competing values. The legislative process is designed for gathering information from numerous sources relatively free from time constraints. By comparison, courts are generally confined to the adverse interests of a limited number of parties in a solitary case. When the legislature fails to act, however, courts may be obliged to resolve disputes based on common-law or constitutional rights. Even after the legislature acts, courts may review legislation to determine if it infringes on constitutional rights or supplements common-law rights. In sum, matters involving law and bioethics require each branch of government to respect the responsibilities of the others.
Consistent with those precepts, this Court has tended to defer to the Legislature in bioethical issues. Even when recognizing a “right to die” based on constitutional law, In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 922, 97 S.Ct. 319, 50 L.Ed.2d 289 (1976), or the common law, In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394, 424, 529 A.2d 434 (1987); In re Peters, 108 N.J. 365, 385, 529 A.2d 419 (19,87); In re Farrell, 108 N.J. 335, 341-42, 529 A.2d 404 (1987); In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 344-45, 486 A.2d 1209 (1985), we have sought legislative guidance. Likewise, when considering the issue of surrogate parenthood, we have deferred to the balance of interests struck by the Legislature in statutes pertaining to custody and adoption. See In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396, 537 A.2d 1227 (1988). Similarly, we have held that the admission of AIDS-infected children to public schools is controlled by administrative regulations promulgated by the Departments of Health and Education. Board of Educ. v. Cooperman, 105 N.J. 587, 523 A.2d 655 (1987). So, too, here the appropriate judicial response is to follow the Legislature’s lead.+
*336The Act provides in relevant part that a record maintained by a blood bank, “which contains identifying information about a person who has or is suspected of having AIDS or HIV infection is confidential and shall be disclosed only for the purposes of this act.” N.J.S.A. 26:50-7. Another section, N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9a, however, specifically authorizes disclosure pursuant to court order for good cause. In that section, the Legislature has struck the balance among the interests of the donor, donee, and society. The statute provides:
The record of a person who has * * * HIV infection may be disclosed by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction which is granted pursuant to an application showing good cause therefor. At a good cause hearing the court shall weigh the public interest and need for disclosure against the injury to the person who is the subject of the record, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the services offered by the program.
Notwithstanding some imprecision in the Act, a blood bank, as all parties acknowledge, is a “program” within the Act’s meaning. Accordingly, statutory requirements apply to the records of blood banks. N.J.S.A. 26:5C-7f. Under the statute, the judicial role is to conduct a hearing to determine whether good cause exists to disclose the HIV-infected donor’s record. In the context of the present case, the statute mandates that a court should weigh the public interest and plaintiffs’ need for limited discovery from the donor against injury to the donor, the physician-patient relationship, and a safe and adequate blood supply. Interests on both sides of the equation are important and deserve careful consideration.
Resolution of this matter involves both the application of N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9 and the determination whether that statute impermissibly infringes on the donor’s constitutional right of privacy. I conclude that plaintiffs have established good cause and that the statute does not violate those rights.
. -III-
On the facts of this case, the least troublesome interest under N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9a is the physician-patient relationship. Defendants base their claim of injury to that relationship on the *337physician-patient privilege. Although this Court has never adopted that privilege, the Legislature has done so in N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.2, limiting it to situations in which “the patient or the physician reasonably believed the communication to be necessary or helpful to enable the physician to make a diagnosis of the condition of the patient or to prescribe or render treatment therefor * * N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.2(b).
As we have stated, “the purpose of the privilege is to permit patients to disclose facts necessary for diagnosis and treatment.” State v. Dyal, 97 N.J. 229, 237, 478 A.2d 390 (1984). Consistent with that statement, the statute expressly declares that for the privilege to apply, the court must find that the communication was for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment. See N.J.S.A. 2A:84-22.1 (defining “patient” as a person who consults a physician “for the purpose of securing preventive, palliative, or curative treatment”); N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.2 (limiting privilege to communications patient or physician “reasonably believed * * * to be necessary or helpful to enable the physician to make a diagnosis of the condition of the patient or to prescribe or render treatment therefor”). The Act defines “diagnosis and treatment” as “services or activities carried out for the purpose of, or as an incident to, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of AIDS and HIV infections and includes interviewing and counseling.” N.J.S.A. 26:5C-5. A blood donation by one person for the benefit of another does not involve either diagnosis or treatment within the statutory privilege. The clear majority of out-of-state courts that have considered the issue also have concluded that the physician-patient privilege does not apply to a blood transfusion. See Belle Bonftls Memorial Blood Center, supra, 763 P.2d at 1009; Laburre, supra, 555 No. 2d at 1383-84; Doe v. University of Cincinnati, 42 Ohio App.3d 227, 229-31, 538 N.E.2d 419, 422-23 (1988); Stenger, supra, 386 Pa.Super, at 586-87, 563 A.2d at 537-38; Hughes, supra, 734 S.W.2d at 677. But see Krygier, supra, 137 Misc.2d at 308-09, 520 N.Y.S.2d at 476-77 (finding privilege *338applicable to blood donation). In sum, the physician-patient privilege does not apply to blood donations.
Weighing the donor’s privacy interest is more difficult. Plaintiffs do not challenge defendants’ standing, and like the parties, I assume that defendants may assert that interest. The analysis of harm to the donor from disclosure begins by recognizing that no disease in modern history has engendered so much attention, fear, and even hysteria as AIDS. As Professor Larry Gostin has stated, “AIDS brings with it a special stigma.” Hospitals, Health Care Professionals, and AIDS: The “Right to Know” the Health Status of Professionals and Patients, 48 Md.L.Rev. 12, 46 (1989). Victims of AIDS confront not only a deadly disease, but ostracism. Basic human decency, as well as the legislative mandate, suggests the need for limits on the otherwise-unfettered discovery that is the keynote of civil litigation. Because AIDS is transmitted by blood and semen as well as hypodermic syringes, unrestricted discovery could lead to inquiries about such matters as the identity of the donor’s sexual partners, the donor’s sexual habits, and his or her use of intravenous drugs. Such private matters are often placed beyond the limits of discovery.
Here, however, various considerations qualify the donor’s expectation of privacy. According to BCBC, before drawing a donor’s blood, it informs the donor that HIV infection is of critical concern and that anyone so infected should not donate blood. Furthermore, BCBC informs donors about high-risk activities and asks them to refrain from donating blood if they are at risk. It also questions donors about their medical history in a manner designed to ascertain whether any donor is a member of a high-risk group. The standard practice of blood banks is to maintain the confidentiality of those answers. The record before us, however, does not indicate that BCBC made any assurance of confidentiality to the donor who is the subject of plaintiffs’ discovery motion.
*339Trial courts, moreover, can limit discovery to avoid excessive intrusions in deeply personal matters. Even in the ordinary case, litigants may not pry into every aspect of a witness’s life. Under Rule 4:10-3, the trial court can limit the extent both of discovery and of public disclosure. Under N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9, the considerations that ordinarily limit disclosure apply with increased vigor when the witness is someone infected with AIDS. Judge Pressler concisely suggested some limitations that the trial court might apply in this case:
If the donor is alive, the court shall determine procedures best calculated to provide plaintiff with the information he requires while giving maximum protection to the donor. For example, the donor’s name need not be supplied if his “veiled” deposition is permitted. If such a deposition were to be permitted, the court could appropriately limit in advance the areas of questioning and impose such other conditions as would insure the donor’s anonymity. If, on the other hand, only a deposition on written questions pursuant to R. 4:15 were permitted, the court could rule on the list of questions prior to their submission and permit an alias identification and oath. It may also be that the donor would have no objection to providing, openly and frankly, the information plaintiff requires or he may authorize his physician to do so. Thus it may also be prudent for the court itself initially to communicate with the donor. In addition, it is likely that the parties themselves will be able to suggest to the court further limitations on the substance of the inquiry and the technique by which it is to be pursued that will afford plaintiff a reasonable discovery opportunity at the least possible cost to the confidentiality interests here implicated. [244 N.J.Super. at 296-97, 582 A.2d 307.]
Thus, although possible injury to the donor is an important consideration, limited discovery need not impinge excessively on the donor’s privacy interest.
The other interest that weighs in favor of confidentiality is the possible effect on the blood-banking system. Defendants hypothesize that permitting discovery of the donor will discourage future donors. They also contend that possible discovery procedures by third parties, such as plaintiffs, may discourage donors from giving honest answers in the screening process, thereby increasing the danger that those donors will contribute contaminated blood. They point to cases stating that discovery of donors will jeopardize the nation’s blood supply. See Bradway, supra, 132 F.R.D. at 80; Coleman, supra, 130 F.R.D. at 362-63; Doe v. American Red Cross, supra, 125 F.R.D. at 652-*34058; Rasmussen, supra, 500 So.2d at 537-38; Laburre, supra, 555 So.2d at 1384-85; University of Cincinnati, supra, 538 N.E.2d at 425; Taylor, supra, 48 Pa.D. & C.3d 178.
Acknowledging the speculative nature of the assertion, defendants concede that no study or statistics support their position. Arguably, moreover, the donors most likely to be discouraged from donating are those who are AIDS infected or who are members of high-risk groups. See Boutte, supra, 127 F.R.D. at 126 (noting disclosure will encourage blood banks to employ due care in collecting blood); Stenger, supra, 563 A.2d at 537 (finding no correlation between limited disclosure and reduced donations); see also Jenner, supra, 25 Trial 47 (arguing disclosure will benefit quality of blood supply). Finally, the record is barren of any support for defendants’ argument that limited discovery procedures will discourage donors from honestly answering questions when being screened. In fact, since 1985, the accuracy of the ELISA test has diminished the importance of other forms of screening. The record simply does not support the hypothesis that subjecting donors to discovery procedures will significantly affect the safety or adequacy of the nation’s blood supply.
Against the arguments favoring non-disclosure, the Legislature mandates that a court should weigh “the public interest and need for disclosure.” N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9. Although the statute does not define “public interest,” the phrase encompasses society’s interest in compensating victims injured by the negligence of others. A corollary to that interest is the right to full discovery. R. 4:10-2(a). Any limitation on those rights suppresses relevant information and undermines the public interest of compensating victims of negligence.
In the present case, plaintiffs need to question the donor about two critical issues: causation and negligence. On the issue of causation, defendants deny that unit 29F0784 was contaminated. Similarly, they deny that the donor was HIV positive in 1984. In the absence of such information as the *341donor may provide, plaintiffs will be confined to relying on an inference that because the donor tested positive in 1986, he was infected two years earlier at the time when his blood was drawn. Confronted with defendants’ denial, plaintiffs’ need to question the donor is obvious.
Judge Pressler’s insightful opinion suggests the relevance of discovery on the negligence issue:
Beyond that causation issue, plaintiff cogently asserts a need in respect of the question of BCBC’s negligence. Illustratively, it was known before August 1984 that early symptoms of AIDS infection include particular lymph-node swelling and skin disorders, and, in fact, by 1983 the commercial blood bankers were conducting routine physical examinations of donors to determine the presence of these symptoms. Did the donor here have those symptoms then? Was he asked about them? Was he physically examined in this respect? Was he given the appropriate high-risk group self-screening information? Was a reasonable effort made to determine if he was in a high-risk category? Were his responses to the medical history questions accurately recorded? Were the questions adequately explained to him? Would present screening requirements, short of laboratory testing, have revealed his AIDS infection? Undoubtedly other relevant lines of interrogation would suggest themselves. All of this information is, in our view, highly pertinent to the issue of BCBC and AABB negligence and is, moreover, to a large extent not available from any source other than the donor himself. [244 N.J.Super. at 294-95, 582 A.2d 307.]
On balance, the statutory interest tilts in favor of limited discovery of the donor. A complete denial of discovery of the donor could subvert both the search for truth in civil litigation and the goals of tort law to deter negligence and to compensate injured parties. As suggested by the Appellate Division, the trial court can protect the donor’s privacy by placing appropriate limits on discovery. Moreover, the effect on the blood-banking system of limited discovery of the donor is speculative. The conflicting arguments about any such effect proceed more from theory than from fact. In sum, plaintiffs have proved the good cause that justifies disclosure under N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9.
Plaintiffs do not request the name and address of the donor, and trial courts should scrutinize any such request in light of N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9. Non-disclosure of the donor’s identity will inevitably restrict investigation of the donor and his past. Absent a showing of specific need, however, disclosure of the *342donor’s identity would appear to contravene the statute. More limited procedures, such as a veiled deposition or written interrogatories, should suffice.
-IV-
Claiming that the donor’s interest in non-disclosure of his HIV infection is protected under the United States Constitution, defendants contend that N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9 violates the donor’s right of privacy. I disagree. My reading of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court leads me to conclude that the statute affords sufficient protection to the donor’s privacy to withstand a constitutional challenge.
The United States Supreme Court has identified two privacy interests protected by the federal constitution. One is concerned with autonomy, “the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599, 97 S.Ct. 869, 876, 51 L.Ed.2d 64, 73 (1977). The other interest is one of confidentiality, “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Id. at 598-99, 97 S.Ct. at 876, 51 L.Ed.2d at 73. The protection of autonomy is limited to a few “fundamental” areas, including marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 713, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1166, 47 L.Ed.2d 405, 420-21 (1976); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-53, 93 S.Ct. 705, 726, 35 L.Ed.2d 147, 176-77 (1973). Only a compelling state interest will justify government infringement in these areas. Roe, supra, 410 U.S. at 155-56, 93 S.Ct. at 728, 35 L.Ed.2d at 178-79.
Our concern in this case is with the confidentiality interest, an interest that has not fared as well as that of autonomy. Although the Supreme Court has considered the confidentiality interest three times in the last fifteen years, it has never found that a statute impermissibly infringes on it. In Paul, which dealt with the distribution of a flyer depicting the plaintiff as a shoplifter, the Court refused to extend “the substantive privacy *343decisions,” 424 U.S. at 713, 96 S.Ct. at 1166, 47 L.Ed.2d at 420, to include the plaintiffs claim “that the State may not publicize a record of an official act such as arrest.” Ibid. Later the Court sustained a statute that authorized the State of New York to “record, in a centralized computer file, the names and addresses of all persons who had obtained pursuant to a doctor’s prescription certain drugs for which there is both a lawful and an unlawful market.” Whalen, supra, 429 U.S. at 591, 97 S.Ct. at 872, 51 L.Ed.2d at 68. Similarly, in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 97 S.Ct. 2777, 53 L.Ed. 2d 867 (1977), the Court recognized that former-President Nixon had a privacy interest in his presidential tapes and papers. Nonetheless,' the Court sustained a federal statute that required archivists to review presidential papers, including those pertaining to the President’s personal affairs. These cases suggest that the Court considers a person’s right of nondisclosure of personal matters not to be a fundamental right that triggers strict scrutiny. See R. Rotunda, J. Nowak, & J. Young, Treatise on Constitutional Law Substance and Procedure § 15.7 at 84 (1986) (Rotunda) (right of non-disclosure not included among six categories of fundamental rights recognized by Court). Neither in Whalen nor in Nixon did the Court require the government to establish a compelling interest to justify its intrusion in the privacy interest at stake. Rather, the Court engaged in a balancing test weighing the personal nature of the information and the extent of the disclosure against the need for the information and the safeguards against undue disclosure.
The Supreme Court’s restrained view of the confidentiality interest does not support the proposition that AIDS-infected blood donors possess a fundamental right of privacy. Instead, the Court’s decisions lead to the conclusion that it has remitted to the legislative process the protection of the privacy concerns of those donors. If a statute is reasonable, it should withstand a constitutional challenge that it infringes on a right of privacy. Rotunda, supra, § 18.30 at 605.
*344No federal circuit court has found that a disclosure requirement infringes on a fundamental interest. Several circuit courts agree that a balancing test provides the proper framework for analysis of confidentiality interests. See Fadjo v. Coon, 633 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir.1981) (prescribing balancing test for determining whether disclosure by state officials of privileged discovery information constitutes violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights); United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir.1980) (upholding statutory requirement that employers report to federal government portions of employees’ medical records); Plante v. Gonzalez, 575 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1129, 99 S.Ct. 1047, 59 L.Ed.2d 90 (1979) (upholding statutory requirement that certain state officials publicly disclose detailed information about their personal finances). Other courts have employed a different analysis. See Kimberlin v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009, 106 S.Ct. 3306, 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986) (finding no violation of right of confidentiality because plaintiff had no “reasonable expectation” of privacy in information disclosed); J.P. v. DeSanti, 653 F.2d 1080 (6th Cir.1981) (finding no “fundamental interest” implicated by State’s disclosure of juveniles’ “social history” during juvenile proceedings).
Defendants also cite two United States District Court opinions holding that the defendants had violated the plaintiffs’ right of privacy by disclosing that the plaintiffs suffered from AIDS. Both cases are distinguishable. In Woods v. White, 689 F.Supp. 874 (W.D.Wis.), aff'd, 899 F.2d 17 (7th Cir.1990) (without opinion), the court found that prison medical personnel had violated the plaintiff’s right of privacy by disclosing to non-medical personnel and to other inmates that the plaintiff, a prisoner, had tested positive for AIDS. The court recognized that in another case a countervailing governmental interest in disclosure could limit the plaintiff’s right of privacy. In Woods, however, the defendants made “no claim that any important public interest was served in their discussion of plaintiff’s *345positive test for the AIDS virus.” Id. at 876. By contrast, limited disclosure pursuant to N.J.S.A. 26:50-9 involves a careful balancing of competing interests and furthers significant governmental interests including those in fair trials, the compensation of victims of negligence, and in a safe blood supply. Moreover, disclosure under the statute is made only after a court hearing and a careful balancing of those interests.
Doe v. Borough of Barrington, 729 F.Supp. 376 (D.N.J.1990), is also distinguishable. There, when the Barring-ton police arrested the plaintiffs husband, he informed them that he had tested HIV positive. On the same day, the plaintiff became involved in an unrelated incident in the Borough of Runnemede, when her car rolled into a neighbor’s fence. The Barrington police told the Runnemede police that the plaintiff’s husband had AIDS. In turn, the Runnemede police told the neighbor, who spread the information throughout the town. The next day eleven parents removed nineteen children from the school “due to a panic over [the plaintiff’s] children attending the school. The media were present, and the story was covered in the local newspapers and on television.” Id. at 379. Without any analysis, the court described the plaintiff’s privacy interest as fundamental. It then found that “[t]he government’s interest in disclosure does not outweigh the substantial privacy interest involved.” Id. at 385. Like Woods, Doe did not involve limited disclosure pursuant to a statutory scheme. Indeed, the disclosure in Doe was broadcast throughout the community. Furthermore, the district court did not identify any governmental interest served by disclosure. In the present case, however, N.J.S.A. 26:5C-9 protects the confidentiality of the information about the donor and limits disclosure to the extent necessary to meet the needs of the injured party.
On its face, N.J.S.A. 26:50-9 affords sufficient protection to the donor’s privacy interest to withstand a constitutional challenge. In reaching that conclusion, I do not belittle the need for protecting the privacy of someone who tests HIV positive. AIDS carries with it an undeniable stigma. So does member*346ship in a high-risk group. The risk of public prejudice is real. To its credit, the New Jersey Legislature has assessed that risk and adopted a statute that balances the interests of the donor, the donee, and the public.
The preceding analysis leads to my disagreement with both the reasoning and result of the dissent. At the outset, the dissent substitutes its own analysis for that of the Legislature. Although I believe that N.J.S.A. 26:50-9 provides the structure for analyzing the rights of the parties, the dissent relegates the statute to one of several factors included in its analysis. Post at 350, 593 A.2d at 329. Respect for the Legislature as a coequal branch of government requires that we follow the analysis it has devised rather than devise one of our own. Nor would I preclude plaintiffs from questioning the donor merely because they cannot now prove that defendants were negligent. Post at 358, 593 A.2d at 334. It is enough that negligence is an issue. The purpose of discovery procedures is to help parties learn of facts relevant to the issues in the case. It would defeat that purpose to require a plaintiff to prove a defendant’s negligence before propounding interrogatories and taking depositions. If, as the dissent fears, the donor is “very ill,” post at 351, 593 A.2d at 330, the trial court may, on an appropriate application, restrict or even terminate discovery. The record before us, however, is silent on that issue.
Like the dissent, I am sensitive not only to the effect of discovery on the donor, but also to the possibility that another plaintiff in another case might intend to hold a donor liable. In this case, however, plaintiffs’ counsel informed us at oral argument that plaintiffs have no such intent. Hence, we need not be deterred by the dissent’s fear “that plaintiff’s discovery motion might actually be an effort to cast a broad net to expose the liability of any party in the donation process and to create the basis for an additional lawsuit against the donor.” Post at 356, 593 A.2d at 332. William Snyder entered St. Joseph’s for heart surgery. He now tests HIV positive and is living a medical tragedy. The judicial system- cannot restore his health, *347but it can provide him with a reasonable opportunity to discover if defendants were negligent. Consequently, I agree with the Court that plaintiffs are entitled to limited discovery of the donor.