An invasion of privacy?

[SwissJon]

My wife works in intensive care as a nurse. Her place of work is not open to the public, in as much as only selected family members are allowed in, and even then only admitted at agreed times.

Yesterday she was nursing her patient when a film crew came into the ward and wanted to film her at work for a news program about organ donation. They asked the Doctor who then came along and asked her. She said "I'm not too happy about this, and I think that you should ask the patients family." Their response was that they weren't going to film the patient, they just wanted some shots that were of someone being cared for in a ward, the doctor gave his consent and they filmed. My wife didn't feel she could refuse, but didn't give her consent to be filmed either. No release forms were signed, and my wife does not have anywhere in her contract any agreement to being filmed. This was basically forced upon her.

I'm of the opinion that this is a gross invasion of her right to privacy, as well as the patients, even though he wasn't identifiable in the film, their being a film crew for a news program doesn't and shouldn't give them special priviledges. What are your opinions? Should the film crew have carried on filming? Is the doctor allowed to consent on behalf of his staff. Does not saying no mean yes?

My wife has no intention of taking this matter further, but we're both a bit miffed about this, and we're wondering whether the feeling of "miffed" was a legitimate one, or whether we should just suck it up.

[RichardTaylor]

Possibly

Who gave the film crew authority to be in the building?
(not counting the doctor who gave consent to film)

What are the Swiss laws re publication of an individuals image (not as part of a crowd or group etc) without the individuals consent?.

[Peach]

At the hospital I work for, the media has to get the OK through the hospital committee, or whatever it's called, to be allowed on site with cameras. After that, as long as they don't show distinguishing features of patients without consent, it's more or less a free-for-all as far as I'm aware.

Is it right, though? As long as the patient cannot be identified in any way, it abides by FOIPA (or HIPAA in the U.S.) standards. Just like I can recount a story of a patient to you and everyone else, so long as none of it can be used to identify that patient (which is why if/when I do recount events, I always add in some untruths, change age/gender/nationality and whatnot). So, no it wouldn't have, at least here, breeched any privacy in regards to the patient.

Your wife, however, it may/may not have depending upon what your contract says. I don't have my collective agreement handy (although I should as I actually need it for something soon) but I do believe mine says something about being filmed by the media as long as they have the OK to be on site, and that I mustn't act on behalf of either my employer or my union without prior approval. This is why I had to cease communications with a local news anchor I know in regards to the current impending layoffs we're going to be going through.

If there is anything in her contract that states she can refuse to be filmed, then she is allowed to do so. If she's forced, such as by a head nurse or a manager, she can grieve it. If there isn't anything stating she can refuse, then that's a bit sticky, I think.

I do believe her privacy was invaded, personally. She's at work, she doesn't really need a news crew filming her. I don't feel there's a need for the general public to see nurses, doctors, paramedics, techs, etc. at work without their wanting to be in front of the camera. They do sensitive jobs; most I know don't want to be sitting on the bus next to someone who recognized them from TV asking them all about what they did that day. This I know first-hand from being involved in a televised weekly, 3-month long, fitness competition. I got recognized several times, including the day I went on the live noon news to talk about how I won the competition etc. I got stopped on my way home, at midnight, by 2 security guards for the transit system to ask me all about the news anchor, if she was that cute in person, etc. etc. Uncomfortable.

Is the doctor allowed to consent? I don't know. That depends on how the hospital itself is run. Here, I don't believe the doctor has the power (much as some of them would like to think they do) to consent for things about the nurses. The nurses have their own (rather powerful) union - and I think here, a nurse could just as easily get a hold of her shop steward to discuss it, rather than the doctor giving consent. A nurse isn't his staff, after all. He's only contracted by the hospital to work there, the nurses don't work for him specifically.

Sorry for the long and kind of rambling answer.

In the end, I don't think the patient's privacy was being violated, but I do think your wife's was in that she was not comfortable, she voiced that she wasn't happy about it. She should have said she did not consent to being filmed, but not saying no does not = yes either. The media, as well as the physician, should have clarified that she was personally ok with HERSELF being filmed, separate to whether she thought it was ok to film there.

[andyw]

The crew would have had permission from the hospital administrators to be there in the first place, the doctor gave his/her permission for them to be on the ward and your wife was aware of the filming and never said no to being filmed. Off course she could have refused if she had felt strongly about it. The patient was not identifiable.
All bases covered by the news crew.
No releases required for editorial photography/filming.

[SwissJon]

The thing is. There's a difference between a public ward where any member the public is allowed so long as they are visiting family. I can, (and have) walked through many wards where there has been no family of mine simply because I was taking a shortcut. I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone requires privacy, then they draw the curtains. It's a public area so filming in such a situation is, in my view, acceptable.. EXCEPT, the patients should not be individually identifiable without their consent. They have no choice but to be there, so they have the right to stipulate whether or not they should be filmed.

Intensive care is different. The door to the intensive unit is locked. Nobody can enter without consent. This is done for several reasons:

Because of the nature of intensive care, Nurses and Doctors need to be able to react swiftly to save someones life. Moving curtains and other things that get in the way (people) wastes valuable seconds that quite litterally could mean the difference between life and death.

Patients are often intubated and have life giving things attached to them. Giving access to the general public risks someone mistakenly pulling out a tube or something and someone passing away unnoticed.

For the same reason, patients are often naked, and often incontinent. Having a complete stranger walk past your bed who has no reason to be there is not acceptable, so their privacy is maintained by keeping all but essential people away (Family are allowed in under specific circumstances, for example when someone is likely to die, but their access is strictly controlled)

Patients are also regularly unconscious (as was the case for my wifes patient) so are unable to consent to who should be allowed in the room. So access to them is limited to essential personnel. If you can't tell your ex- to go away, or ask someone to get them removed, they might be dangerous.. So again, access to the patient is limited.

The patient is often in a very low immune state, so cleanliness is essential.. Scrubs and scrubbing is the uniform of the day.

To be honest, access to the unit is so limited, I've never been inside, despite having been with my wife for nearly 10 years. That's not a complaint, I don't want access, but whenever I have to go speak to her, I'm not allowed further than the entry door.

My point is, the expectation for privacy in an ICU is much much higher than in an open ward. My wife has been working in ICU for 20 years now, I very much doubt that her contract states that she consents to be filmed. It's clear that the film crew were allowed on the unit with consent from the hospital. But my wife was given 5 minutes warning. She was not asked for consent, and the family of her patient wasn't asked either.

Personally I feel this is a gross invasion of both their privacies, even if the film crew made her patient unidentifiable, I don't think they should have been there without the consent of the patients family for all the reasons stated above. Switzerland has some of the most powerful privacy laws in the world. (Which is why people have Swiss bank accounts) so I would think this was probably in contravention to a federal law somewhere.

However, like I said, there's no way this is going to get taken further because my wife can't be bothered, and I doubt the patients family will ever be told (which I think is wrong also).. But we do both feel that both their rights privacy were invaded. And really the point of this thread is to find out how many of you feel we're right to feel agrieved.

[Bruce A]

I can't believe they were allowed in. Did they wear hair and shoe covers, did they scrub their hands with anti-bacterial soap etc. This was the ICU. When my wife was a patient in ICU I had to do all these things, they were quite strict. And what about all the distraction to other nurses and doctors. AFAIC this was a serious no-no and someone should have said so.

[Hill Country Hack]

I'm very certain the film crew had permission from the hospital administration to film. I am surprised not a single member or representative (Public Affairs) of the administration was on hand to brief the staff and ensure the crew did not try to or inadvertantly overstep it's bounds.

I understand the ICU environment have worked in said areas. Not every patient requires a staff member at the bedside every second. Could your wife have asked for a moment to complete any required care and then stepped out of frame?

It is an interesting question. My personal opinion is if no verbal or written refusal to being filmed, then that equates to consent. As for the doctor giving permission. That individual cannot and should not make decisions for the facility unless they have expressed consent to do so. Would some forewaring to the ICU staff been beneficial? Absolutley.

[CurlyCorry]

My mother died in an ICU. I can tell you, I don't care who gave them permission, that is WRONG! As Jon states, we had to wait for permission to enter the ICU to visit our own mother, why the hell would they allow some film crew access to such sensitive areas of the hospital? Are you telling me they couldn't have gotten their shots in another ward? Where people CAN give permission?? Oh my word, this would have sent me to the hospital administrator!!!

[brianxlt]

I'm sure the hospital administration gave permission to do the filming and I'm sure it was a PR action for the hospital. Not sure how the set-up is in that hospital, but I'm sure they didn't arbitrarily go in to the individual rooms so kicking off tubes and plugs was probably not going to happen. As for your wife and her choice - of course she had one - she could have said no thank you and stepped aside. They could have got someone else that didn't object and pressed on. If she was worried about being let go if she didn't do it she could have went to her rep if she has one and fought it. The hospital is a public place plain and simple although there are areas with restricted access they are still public.

Should the administration for warned the staff - yes, did they have to - no.
Did the Doctor in charge know about it ahead of time probably. If not you would think he/she would have called someone to find out if they had permission to be there.

[NathanFranke]

What the news people did doesn't seem right, but they probably covered all their legal bases. Your wife should probably take it up with hospital administration, since they're the ones who (most likely) had to give permission.