Pennsylvania has a relatively strong right-to-know law, giving the public access to most government records, with a few narrow exceptions.

That's what makes a decision by the Lancaster County coroner to withhold information that clearly should be public so troubling.

As the LancasterOnline editorial board explained last week, Lancaster County coroner Dr. Stephen Diamonti has withheld the name of a 3-year-old boy who accidentally shot and killed himself with his father's handgun in October in the county. The newspaper appealed that denial and in December the state's Office of Open Records ordered the name released.

Diamonti, however, has appealed that decision, and the case is going before the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. The county commissioners have made it clear they don't support Diamonti's appeal, and have removed their names from the case.

Diamonti's argument is that any minor whose death is investigated by the state should be shielded from public view.

We have no doubt he's sincere in that belief, but it is not the law as it currently stands, and that should be the only guiding principal for elected officials like coroners.

It is not the place of a single elected official to decide what should be public. Our system doesn't work that way. Coroners are part of the executive branch — they don't make the laws, they carry them out.

And in this particular case, there is no ambiguity. Pennsylvania courts have held multiple times that autopsy records are public and must be released.

Diamonti has been told that repeatedly and still will not follow the law.

There's little difference between what he's doing and someone being stopped for speeding trying to argue that the speed limit should be higher on that road. Maybe the law should change, but it isn't that way now, and we expect people to follow the law, even when they don't always agree with it.

Reporting on tragedies like this is essential, because it shows the human impact of an action that might otherwise could have been avoided.

And that is just one reason right-to-know laws like Pennsylvania's exist. Such laws also recognize a basic fact: The public has an absolute right to know about what is done in its name.

There are many options for elected officials who disagree with a particular law. Unilaterally deciding not to follow it isn't one of them, and any official who does so violates the public trust.

—JK