Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


nolegion last won the day on February 1 2016

nolegion had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

700 Excellent

About nolegion

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hello shallowthought9 and welcome to this thread. For what it is worth I think that in the light of the clearly disgraceful way your (former) behaved it is very generous of you to contribute to a thread such as this still affirming:- “I will always agree to a recording (audio or even video) even though I am not “photogenic, as I have over the last 35years striven to be open and honest with nothing to hide.“ I am glad you got shot of the racist and congratulations on at least getting youtube to remove some of the commentary. I can’t comment much on your lawyer’s advi
  2. No problem at all. I stopped 'leading' this topic some while ago for more than one reason but including the fact that in contrast to when I started it back in 2010 - when I was really scratching around to contribute relevant personal knowledge\legal research and to find any related internet comments at all - there is now extensive internet commentary on the subject all over the place; some of it is still inaccurate, but ,nevertheless, it is now an entirely acknowledged fact that many patients would like audio-recordings of their appointments to take home - and it is well- established in this
  3. Hello, Zentrix. I am glad to say the answer to your first question is ‘yes’. You will not be breaking any law if you are doing this for purely personal purposes (such as looking after your mother). Indeed, I can acknowledge that I have, more than once, been in circumstances pretty much identical to those you describe and have always (privately) audio-recorded all such meetings. As regards your second question – concerning afterwards telling the parties involved that you have recorded them without their knowing and offering copies of the recording – well, that’s a tactical point rathe
  4. That quote is indeed very useful. It summarises what others have already researched and reported, but it belongs in what I think of as the 'laminate list'. As MyTturn suggests: durable pieces of succint authority to produce in the face of those ignorant of law and practice in their own field. ............................................................................ And talking of ignorance: "The medic 'took his patient hostage', refusing to take the needle out of his arm until he deleted the video" Thanks to the viewer who has just sent me the story with this strapline,
  5. I regret to say that does seem to be true nowadays, Ford. Indeed, some say that through progressive ‘outsourcing’ and ‘subcontracting’ the privatisation process is already under way. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Spring is in the air. Three pieces of commentary, bang on topic and committed to - in my view - sensible ways of thinking about it, have caught my attention so far this April:- 1. The first is in the form of a podcast by the Wall Street Journal which is only 6 mins long (& the ‘auto-type’ version, in a rare Klingon dialect, is unreadable.) The publication
  6. Yesterday, the Times carried two medical articles on two different pages, without any linking comment. 1. The first was headlined ‘ Doctors who trained abroad ”far more likely to be incompetent” ‘ Sources and some statistics were, of course, cited, and those included the GMC’s own records. Irish-trained, twice as likely, apparently. Bangladesh-trained, 13 times more likely, it is suggested. 2. The second article was entitled ‘Medical schools turn down 770 straight-A applicants’. It went on to explain that there is ‘a shortage of doctors in the NHS’, and: “The government say
  7. As regards the medical consequences of what occurred, I leave that to those more knowledgeable. But as regards the legal process: 1. It may well be the case that as a complaint to the NHS there is no reason to think that just because the process extends over more than 3 years, it is no longer somehow valid. But as regards litigation, proceedings involving personal injury will usually be 'time-barred' if they haven't been formally commenced (i.e by service of a Writ) within 3 years from the date of injury. And it's not unduly cynical, in my view, to predict that a complaint that is
  8. Hi, My Turn. Family reasons have kept me from contributing much online recently, but you have spotted an occasion where I did. That article really got my goat, and so I aimed a comment under it at the unprofessionalism and futility of such approaches. As things turned out, another commentator soon produced a more potent argument (at least in America) which I really liked. Yup, where healthcare is a contractual purchase, not a statutory entitlement as here, patients will sooner or later vote with their feet on this matter, and that’s where it will hurt the relevant doctors most: in the wal
  9. I missed this broadcast and would much like to listen to it via iPlayer. Which day was it on, please, Sali/HB...
  10. So. Farewell then 'care.data'. I would like to know how much your fiasco cost us all. Get on and share this information with us now (with no opt-out). [E.J. Cribb, 97 &3/4 (in the shade)] Ref:- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/06/nhs-to-scrap-single-database-of-patients-medical-details
  11. Ford. 1. A recording of a consultation taken by a patient belongs to the patient and the doctor has no right to a copy. If a doctor requests a copy for the patient’s medical purposes and is given it by the patient (which s/he elects to keep), then it should form part of the patient’s medical record & accordingly would be subject to DPA subject access requests and the like. A patient, however, cannot oblige a doctor to put an ‘unsolicited’ copy of the recording with the patient’s medical records. (N.B. Nevertheless, it can still be used as vital evidence to force written en
  12. Many thanks again, Sali. I lifted the contact details for Jeremy Hunt from the DoH website earlier today. See below:- .................................................................................... The Rt. Honourable Jeremy Hunt Secretary of State for Health Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries Unit Department of Health Richmond House 79 Whitehall London SW1A 2NS Contact form:- https://contactus.dh.gov.uk/?openform Telephone0207 210 4850 Fax0115 902 3202 Textphone0207 451 7965 Open Monday to Friday, 8.30am to 5.30pm ...
  13. Thanks for coming back to me, Ford. The point you raise centres on one of the many (and serious) actual or apparent contradictory points in the document. In this particular instance, I think the ambiguity can be partly, but only partly, resolved and I hope the following addresses your query, at least to some extent. A The ‘Information Governance’ reference is not to a phrase which reflects any particular provision of law, but to a collection of ‘issues’, above all, as the document would colour it, that of ‘confidentiality’. It is middle-management prat-speak, in my view. See for inst
  • Create New...