Duchess of Cambridge hoax call nurse found dead

[Selothi]

Yet for us pommies it's the lager of choice to get ****faced for cheap-ish. Stella, Carlsberg and Carling also being close runners-up.

 

[LordOfShadows]

Yeah, you all should go die in a fire. Fitting punishment for inflicting the plague known as "Foster's" upon the world. Though I 'spose you've got the right idea by not drinking it.

Yeah, i cant recall ever seeing someone drink Foster's. Few would dare to even contemplate such a foul deed.

Truthfully, 'tis an abomination in the sight of god - that would be why we ship it to england.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I understand the medical privacy laws but seriously what did this apparent leak tell us that we don't already know?

That it's very easy to impersonate the Queen, and that the hospital in question released information over the phone without properly verifying identity. It's not the scope of the issue that's the problem, but that it was allowed to happen at all.

 

[rejenorst]

The point remains that the RF was less affected than the hospital in question and that the entire event has been blown out of proportion by the media who seems to be on a friggin witch hunt, much of which I think contributed to pushing that nurse over the edge. I have already stated that it's the hospital's problem for not having proper phone protocol which they admitted as much.

If there was a breach in medical privacy it would probably be the hospital that's liable and not the DJs.

In any case releasing patient status information to the media or to individuals who ask for the patient by name is a daily routine hospitals go through without braking privacy laws. Admittedly there are guidelines when dealing with the media such as vague terminology use: critical, serious, good condition etc. As for impersonating the Queen; like I said the hospital and the media is taking it more seriously than the Royal Family:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4684619/prince-charles-jokes-about-australian-dj-prank-call.html

 

[Mage246]

No, you're completely wrong on that. You can't just release information to the media or because someone says a name. You're supposed to have patient or power of attorney authorization.

 

[rejenorst]

I don't know how you guys do it in the U.S. but in Aus the media routinely reports the condition of some poor bastard newly arrived in hospital (if they are the center of media attention for whatever reason) as critical, serious, stable etc.
In many such cases its the police giving out the info but in some its not.

Anyway this snippet is in in regards to U.S. medical privacy laws:

Inquiries that identify the patient by name
Information about the patient’s general condition and location of an inpatient, outpatient or emergency department patient may be released only if the inquiry specifically identifies the patient by name. No information may be given if a request does not include a specific patient's name or if the patient requests that the information not be released.  This includes inquiries from the press.

Inquiries from clergy
The HIPAA privacy regulations expressly permit hospitals to release the patient's name, location in the hospital, general condition and religion to clergy members, unless the patient has asked that the information not be released.  Clergy do not need to ask for the individual by name.  For example, clergy could request information regarding patients of a particular religion.  However, hospitals are not required to ask about patients' religious affiliations, and patients do not have to supply that information.

Release of patient’s general condition and location
As long as the patient has not requested that information be withheld, you may release the patient's one-word condition and location to individuals who inquire about the patient by name or to clergy, without obtaining prior patient authorization.

Condition

For the one-word condition, use the terms “undetermined,” “good,” “fair,” “serious” or “critical.” Definitions of patient conditions are listed below:

    Undetermined - Patient is awaiting physician and/or assessment.

    Good - Vital signs are stable and within normal limits. Patient is conscious and comfortable. Indicators are excellent.

    Fair - Vital signs are stable and within normal limits. Patient is conscious, but may be uncomfortable. Indicators are favorable.

    Serious - Vital signs may be unstable and not within normal limits. Patient is acutely ill. Indicators are questionable.

    Critical - Vital signs are unstable and not within normal limits. Patient may be unconscious. Indicators are unfavorable.

Beyond the One-Word Condition: Media Access to Patients
The following activities require written authorization from the patient:
1) Drafting a detailed statement (i.e., anything beyond the one-word condition) for approval by the
patient or the patient's legal representative
2) Taking photographs of patients
3) Interviewing patients

As you can see as long as its a one word reference to the condition you don't need permission unless the patient specifically requests complete privacy I believe.

In reference to the prank call, more information was given out then the one word condition but then the information about the belching was in the public domain already due to a press statement from the RF.

I do not know however if the privacy laws of the U.S. and Aus are similar to those of England.

 

[Mage246]

I was referring to the fact that they told the caller what she was sick with. That's not allowed.

 

[rejenorst]

No they didn't. The nurse didn't actually state any medical specifics apart from that Kate had been a tad dehydrated and she hadn't been retching while the nurse had been on duty, and that she was in a stable condition.

Most of this was already public knowledge thanks to RF press statement so the only new bit of information was that she had been a tad dehydrated.

There was no mention of pregnancy either. The tabloids themselves had seen the pregnancy coming and the RF pretty much confirmed their suspicions when they mentioned her symptoms of morning sickness in a press release. So really the only leak had been dehydration.

This doesn't change the fact they are not supposed to reveal anything to outsiders except possibly a one word reference to her condition but like I said the matter has been blown out of all proportion.

The actual call: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmS8JwyRUdk

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

In many such cases its the police giving out the info but in some its not.

Here, it would always be the police, or the lawyer/solicitor/PR guy/whatever of the person in question.

 

[rejenorst]

That's usually because their the first point of contact between the press and the hospitalized. No point in asking the hospital if the Police are there to make a statement. In the case of say Malala it was the hospital and doctors who made announcements about her condition, probably because it was in not only in the public's interest but her's as well. 

In any case both the nurse's and the radio station's defense would probably be argued along the lines section 55 of the data protection act:

Conditions:
(b)that he acted in the reasonable belief that he had in law the right to obtain or disclose the data or information or, as the case may be, to procure the disclosure of the information to the other person,
(c)that he acted in the reasonable belief that he would have had the consent of the data controller if the data controller had known of the obtaining, disclosing or procuring and the circumstances of it, or
(d)that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-royals/death-of-uk-hospital-nurse-strengthens-call-for-new-privacy-laws/article6121227/

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

In many such cases its the police giving out the info but in some its not.

It's usually because in the case of "famous" people being hospitalised, and media interest, there's almost always some sort of police investigation to make sure there's been no foul play. In this case there was no requirement for a police presense, as morning sickness is nothing to investigate, but medical professionals should not be releasing this info to the media. It should be done by official statements from one of the people I mentioned in my last post.

 

[Mad Vader]

A potential heir to the throne must be announced only by the ruling monarch. I thought everybody knew that. 

 

[rejenorst]

In many such cases its the police giving out the info but in some its not.

It's usually because in the case of "famous" people being hospitalised, and media interest, there's almost always some sort of police investigation to make sure there's been no foul play. In this case there was no requirement for a police presense, as morning sickness is nothing to investigate, but medical professionals should not be releasing this info to the media. It should be done by official statements from one of the people I mentioned in my last post.

The person doesn't have to be famous or a celebrity. The media tends to present itself as representatives of the public interest and therefore can help focus public attention onto individuals or issues that could technically become matters of the public interest in hindsight (in the end its a grey area). Whether the statement is given by the police or the hospital depends on the circumstances (like you mentioned: if there's a pending or ongoing or concluded investigation). Tabloids will argue that the royal family fall in the sphere of the public interest but this argument is also wearing thin and was ruled against in the French court of law in regards to Kate's topless photos where it was considered that the royal couple expected privacy in their hotel. I believe a camera on a small toy helicopter was used which in itself was illegal. My example of Malala had nothing to do with the royal family however and extended information about the patient's condition was passed on to the media through interviews with the doctors which I believe adhered to section 55.

The police are generally bound by similar privacy laws as any other organization, however if deemed beneficial to the community or the individual at hand they need not ask permission from an individual when releasing information about him/her. Same goes for hospitals.

In any case, most hospital's have patient information lines so when someone calls the hospital they can generally be put through to the individual (if circumstances allow) and if asked for by the patient's name (like I said before) vague one liners are allowed to be used to describe the condition of the patient and the location/hospital location of where the patient is. This is generally done to assist distressed family. If the patient doesn't want any information disclosed about them then they generally have to take it up with the hospital before hand.

In terms of detailed medical information about individuals, this is generally not allowed to be passed on to anyone without consent, save if it falls under section 55.

There are a few exceptions of course some which fall under section 55, such as insurance companies (if the patient is insured), sending information to the DVLA and DVA for the public/patient's own good, reporting gunshot and knife wounds, suspicion of known infectious diseases, in some cases information sent to employers and government agencies on request (with variations in limit of scope), when such information cannot otherwise be withheld and information sent to research institutes that could benefit the public.

A potential heir to the throne must be announced only by the ruling monarch. I thought everybody knew that. 

It was.