Audio-recording your consultations with NHS doctors

[nolegion]

I knew nothing about the valiant Ms Clift's case until turboandy brought the details here.

 

I have now had a chance to look at some of the small print. A local council, unjustly, put her on a type of 'violent persons register' - which it busily copied into a lot of other organisations over a period of 18 months.

 

Ms Clift – who, it appears, didn't have legal representation until she actually got to court – took them on using the notoriously difficult, technical, law of defamation (libel and slander), and won. Impressive.

 

I had no idea that councils etc maintained such formal registers in the first place, and they could certainly be used for very spiteful and damaging purposes in the wrong bureaucratic hands.

 

Ms Clift also had another 'iron in the fire' using the Data Protection Act, but those proceedings were 'stayed' pending the outcome of the libel suit, and I don't know what happened to that alternative line of attack.Perhaps the victory in the first case was enough for Ms C.

 

I find that the Information Commissioner's Office has some guidance on such things, referred to as 'violent warning markers', which you can access via the very end of their of advisory documents index, here:-

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/data_protection_and_privacy_and_electronic_communications.aspx#violent

 

It contains a couple of useful pointers:-

 

"For the processing to be fair, you should normally inform individuals who have

been identified as being potentially violent soon after you make the decision to

add a marker to their record. It should be part of your procedure to write to the

individual setting out why their behaviour was unacceptable and how this has

led to the marker".

 

and

 

"Section 10 of the [Data Protection] Act gives individuals the right to require you to stop

processing their personal information if this is likely to cause them substantial

and unwarranted damage or distress. If an individual gives you a section 10

notice relating to a violent warning marker then you should be aware that you

may ultimately have to justify creating the marker in court."

(emphasis mine)

 

I have never used s10 DPA but it must certainly be worth considering in such a context.

Edited March 12, 2012 by nolegion

[My Turn]

As you may be aware in my previous posts I did in fact mention that the CAB are now trying to cover up a serious complaint I made against one of the managers namely [edit].

 

Hello TurboAndy. You have had so many battles that it's amazing!

 

An organisation's complaints procedure often gives the impression that they will investigate the complaint impartially. As a result we the public are led to think that this will actually happen but all too often it simply doesn't work like that. The way I tend to see it is that when you use the complaints procedure you are in effect asking the organisation to look into its own behaviour and do something about it. However if the organisation is arrogant or perhaps ill-informed then it will continually think it is in the right and often manipulate the complaint investigation to suit their corporate beliefs no matter how incorrect they are. All this means that a complaints procedure often fails to properly look into a matter.

 

Furthermore, the outcome of a complaints investigation is most unlikely to offer any true redress.

 

I support your cause. However I wonder if you might be expecting too much from an organisation's complaints procedures? I suggest this because it seems that you are getting messed around by complaints handling in several organisations. I accept that one explanation for this is that they covertly swap blacklist data (as you have posted about before) but it seems to me that they way you get handled may be on account of you "daring" to insist on your rights to a proper investigation. I think proper investigations are much fewer and further apart than they should be.

 

-My Turn

[nolegion]

On the long-running battle about the right to a recording of a benefits medical (or 'WCA'), I am trying to make sure I don't clutter hard news about what is actually being, bit-by-bit, announced by the DWP and\or experienced by claimants, and speculation by the likes of me as to what on earth is going on in the wider picture.

 

Erika PNP's announcement thread in the benefits forum is now the principal thread on this score, and I await developments with interest. See:

 

(http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?336827-Announcement-ESA-claimants-now-have-the-option-of-having-their-WCA-recorded/page3).

 

However, even by the most adamant standards of political reticence 'the wider picture' does seem to be proving extraordinarily difficult to get hold of.

 

Last March and April there was a purported trial or 'Pilot' (of a scheme supposedly now actually in operation since December last); and before the Pilot got under way, the DWP\JobcentrePlus produced a factsheet under the title of:

 

"Audio Recording of Medical Assessments Pilot"

 

which, amongst other things, gave an indication of how the 'Pilot' was to be evaluated.

 

Nearly a year later the DWP is still refusing to release statistical details of how the Pilot was actually 'evaluated' and, bewilderingly, appears just to have denied that it knows about its original factsheet.

 

This emerged in a quite lengthy Freedom of Information exchange, covering a number of points, but including:

 

Requester:-

 

3)There is a document published by JCPlus entitled “Audio Recording

of Medical Assessments Pilot” probably early in 2011, to which you

have not referred.

 

a.Where can it be found on your website, to prove author and date?

 

DWP:-

 

I do not hold any information regarding a document published by Jobcentre Plus entitled “Audio Recording of Medical Assessments Pilot”.

 

And this is a situation which is rendered all the more odd because the Department of Work and Pensions name is actually on it, if you have a look here:-

 

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/audio.doc

(see e.g. 1st page, bottom right hand corner)

 

and indeed, as the requester pointed out, the DWP were actually quoting some of the points the factsheet referred to in the exchange of emails.

 

So what on earth is going on? I think it reasonable to suggest that if you look at the 'bullet points' near that first page corner you will find an indication of statistical information to be gathered which the DWP does not now wish to produce. That's my guess.

 

You can see the entire FoI exchange from the link below. (The specific 'denial of knowledge' is in the DWP response of 22 03 12) :-

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wca_audio_recordings#incoming-267140

Edited March 23, 2012 by nolegion

[nolegion]

I learn that in the US there is a phenomenon known as the "Independent Medical Examination" which is partly described below:-

 

" Employers frequently ask physicians to conduct medical examinations and review radiology films and other diagnostic tests of employees. Physicians also provide such services at the request of other third parties. These examinations are commonly called independent medical examinations. Increasingly, patients are bringing and prevailing in medical malpractice lawsuits against physicians who conduct independent medical examinations, in part because of physicians' misconceptions of their legal duties in this context. Despite the absence of a traditional physician–patient relationship, physicians who conduct independent medical examinations still owe various legal duties to the examinee patient…"

 

(ex http://www.annals.org/content/142/12_Part_1/974)

 

These 'IMEs' also come into play when e.g. someone claims on an insurance policy because they have become ill and\or disabled – quite a lot like a 'Work Capability Assessment' comes into play when someone claims on their National insurance over here in the same circumstances.

 

It appears, surprise, surprise, that a certain very large international insurance company doesn't like the medically examined taking a recording of such IMEs - and tries to forbid their being accompanied as well!.

 

In so far as the law on this has been tested in the US,however, I am glad to say the courts there seem to be ruling soundly in favour of the rights of the examined.

 

See this link:

 

http://lindanee.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/unum-no-witness-or-recording-of-florida-imes/

 

for which I am entirely indebted to the (in my view excellent) Atos Register of Shame.

 

(http://victimsofatoscorruption.wordpress.com/tag/atos-register-of-shame/ or

http://victimsofatoscorruption.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/the-atos-audio-recording-campaign-gets-mentioned-in-the-big-issue-magazine/)

Edited March 25, 2012 by nolegion

[nolegion]

"This has become a trend recently. I have had a run of people wanting to record the appointment for whatever reason."

 

I find watching medics talk themselves into a corner on this issue quite amusing.

 

Hereis an example from the USA where the situation is somewhat different. First, medical care is not State-provided, of course, and second, in a minority of states, there is statute law making covert recording illegal, and the evidence thus obtained inadmissible in court (which is not the case here).

 

At some stage in such discussions it usually occurs to at least one of the participants that, where it is legal to record covertly, as here, it is self-defeating, as well as unprofessional, to try to prevent people recording overtly.

 

See this discussion earlier this year:-

 

http://amazingcharts.com/ub/ubbthreads.php/topics/39405/Patients_using_audio_recorders

[nolegion]

"In recent years we have significantly strengthened the way we monitor doctors with conditions or suspensions. Wer equire doctors to tell us about their employers and we keep them informed, and we also circulate details of all the actions we take on doctors’ registrations to all NHS organisations and locum agencies. In addition, this information is available 24 hours a day 7 days a week on our website. The action taken against the doctor is noted on his or her entry to the register which is also available online."

 

GMC 'statement in reponse to channel 4 news', 20 03 12:-

http://www.gmc-uk.org/news/12348.asp

 

Well, I guess that doesn't include this W\E of 31 03 12/01 04 12 throughout which the 'registation checker' at the GMC site has reported 'Due to essential maintenance the system is unavailable'.

 

Bit elaborate for an April Fool, I think.

[nolegion]

Following on from last post, as at 1.00pm today, you still can't check whether a doctor has been registered in the first place, struck off, suspended, or permitted to work only under specified conditions. The online registration checker - top right hand corner of the link below – is still non-functional, and that is on the same homepage which links to the vaunted 24 7nature of the facility.

 

Well, technical glitches can take time to fix, but what is truly astonishing is that no-one at the GMC has thought it would be a good idea to include - on the homepage or in the 'closed' announcement - an apology for the extended downtime, an estimate of when the service will resume, and directions as to what alternative routes e.g. an employing hospital or GPs practice can take to verify qualifications in the meantime.

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/

[Annette1973]

I sometimes record my consultations, however my condition can make me a little forgetful, so my Dr has no objection to me recording. I have had a couple of consultations video taped as my health issues are not very common and so I have given the NHS permission to use the videos for research etc.....

[nolegion]

Hi Annette. Always good to learn of the experience of recording patients – particularly when they have been properly treated, for once, as you seem to have been. And the simple 'memory advantage' is clearly one of the many reasons that patients may wish to take a recording home.

 

Interesting that they have asked to video you. One of the arguments against recording (of any sort)sometimes put forward by medics is that it would in somehow 'inhibit' the consultation or make it less 'natural'\'fluent'\'informal'\ effective'. But, time and again, they have no difficulty with proceeding when it is they who wish to have a recording!

Edited April 3, 2012 by nolegion

[turboandy]

Good call nolegion,

 

I like the amazingcharts link which shows just what doctors are saying about this topic.

 

It’s also very interesting like you point out, and exactly what my doctors keep telling me which is, that a video recorder in the room would somehow interfere with the consultation. Of course this is ridiculous, as when they want to record you, somehow a recorder suddenly stops being intrusive. Go figure!

 

Clearly from the amazingcharts link, the doctors are effectively admitting the real reason they don't want to be video recorded is because they are scared of being caught on film "screwing up" and therefore being made accountable for their actions.

 

However. It’s good to hear that a doctor is allowing video recording to at least one patient here namely Annette.

 

ALSO, i have got a video that i will post up here just as soon as i have progressed my own situation a bit further, clearly showing a doctor trying to explain why he doesn't want to be filmed during his/my consultations. "hint" he makes a fool of himself in the process. If only he knew he was being filmed. lol

[nolegion]

Quite so, Andy. On both side of the Atlantic, there seems to be a 'shortlist' of wholly erroneous, indeed pathetic, excuses which medics of limited knowledge, little reflection and even less candour make silly little whines about when they realise a patient insists on taking a recording, and the 'intrusive' excuse is just about the silliest.

 

It is only intrusive if the patient finds it intrusive. And a patient's recording should never intrude on another patient's consultation. If that were the case that would mean that the clinicians were arranging consultations such that other patients could overhear them, and that would be an infringement of the overheard patient's rights of privacy\confidentiality by the medics.

 

Conversely, there is nothing which a clinician can say or do to a patient behind closed doors, which a patient isn't entitled to 'shout from the rooftops' if he or she wants to so, thereby 'waiving' the right to confidentiality to the extent of the rooftop announcement. The doctor should have nothing to hide.

 

Their principal real fears are, of course, firstly that their lack clinical competence (under which heading I include the rudeness and arrogance of all too many of them) will be evidenced in patients' hands; and secondly, the ability to make inaccurate records about what has happened is severely curtailed i.e. lying about recording patients becomes very much more difficult.

 

I have a couple of instance of these arguments at work, this Bank holiday W\E.

 

The first is another USA doctor, this time writing purportedly to advise other doctors what to do about patients recording 'office visits' (= 'doctors appointments' over here). Frankly, 'what a twit.' He does the 'confidentiality' claptrap, and then, bold as brass, gets to the real point:

 

" Recording a medical discussion via video or audio … puts you and your office at significant risk."

 

Oh does it now, David Troxel, MD? Apart from the exposure of medical negligence\malpractice, what risk would that be?

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/08/patients-allowed-record-office-visit.html

 

And incidentally in the majority American states it is expressly NOT illegal to record covertly.

 

The other example, is one I have mentioned before, and it relates to Freedom of Information requests, the DWP and Atos. Back in 2010, a requester challenged the DWP to find grounds on which they could declare the taking of a covert recording of an Atos benefits medical illegal.

 

The DWP failed because it is not illegal, of course, - but they came up with a version of the confidentiality\intrusion excuse! A recording claimant might record another claimant's confidential 'information', they said, which wouldn't be 'acceptable'.

 

Now, as you may well know, the rules are supposed to have changed last year – a claimant is now supposed to be able to require Atos to take (and provide a copy of) a recording of any work capability assessment. So co-conspirator Jim O asked them earlier this year whether it would be 'acceptable' to the DWP that Atos should arrange benefits medicals such that they could be overheard, or indeed be recorded, by a claimant in another session. Oh no, of course not! - came the eventual but emphatic reply, that should indeed not happen. So the intrusion\confidentiality excuse evaporates into the thin air of ignorance whence it came.

 

See:-

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/personal_and_confidential_inform#comment-26989

Edited April 8, 2012 by nolegion

[nolegion]

I am grateful to the viewer who drew my attention to the 'Poppy" survey and report.

 

This was concluded in 2009, I think, and it's about how the parents of premature babies are treated (particularly babies who need initial intensive care).

 

It highlights, in my words, shabby communication skills from clinicians of all types at an agonisingly worrying time for the newborn's family, e.g.:-

 

" Free access to an infant’s notes was possible in only a fifth of units. However, when asked about other ways in which parents are updated, many staff emphasised free access to bedside notes and care plans. No units were reported to give parents recordings of consultations with medical staff about their babies and very few gave parents written update summaries about their baby’s current condition and care."

 

And it includes a recommendation that neonatal facilities should:-

 

"… improve communication by recording consultations with doctors,"

 

(i.e. to producerecordings for the parents to keep).

 

Well, indeed, but what I find odd about the report is that, while it cites all sorts of learned medical papers and texts, it never once 'notices' that it has arrived at pretty much exactly the same conclusion with regard to recording as the Public Inquiry into the infant heart surgery scandal at Bristol Royal Infirmary, which produced its final report in 2001.

 

Recommendation No 10 of that Inquiry, was:-

 

Tape-recording facilities should be provided by the NHS to enable patients, should they so wish, to make a tape recording of a discussion with a healthcare professional when a diagnosis, course of treatment, or prognosis is being discussed.

 

(and the occasion and scope of the inquiry and recommendations make it clear that this would extend to eg. parents of infants, obviously.)

 

What happened?. As I've mentioned before, the DoH flatly refused to comply with the Bristol recommendation; and , I would be very glad to be corrected but I doubt whether the Poppy report has made the slightest difference in this respect either, alas.

 

( http://www.bliss.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Poppy_report_web.pdf)

[turboandy]

Everyone please take notice of the REAL agendy here as to why ATOS and the NHS etc don't want video/audo recording, as if we didn't already know it!!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/19/sickness-benefit-try-avoid-paying?newsfeed=true

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/money-opinion/p-s-investigates/atos-worker-sneers-at-down-and-outs-282744

 

and a link that could be a cause for concern for our freedom of speech regarding ATOS.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/money-opinion/p-s-investigates/atos-complaint-suspends-carerwatch-website-282758

and as for this, it beggars belief. What hypocrites

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outrage-as-firm-accused-of-smearing-disabled-84407

Edited April 13, 2012 by turboandy

[nolegion]

Well. I have to agree with your Atos links, Andy. Whatever on earth is going on there it needs the 'disinfectant of sunlight' very badly - and now.

 

As regards both the benefits medicals and the NHS, the attitude to being recorded is usually 'hostility born from fear', I think. (Thank you, sali from post #4 this thread, nearly two years ago.)

 

On a more up-beat note I am glad to see that the recording of doctors is continuing to make headway in the USA, despite the likes of David Troxel, MD (post # 386, this thread). Commentary on a recent negligence suit there, includes:-

 

"The case illustrates the growing liability risks doctors face as handheld recording devices become more common. Technology is making it increasingly easy for patients and others to record their doctor without the physician's knowledge, legal experts say. A related issue is patients requesting permission to audio-record visits to the doctor."

 

See http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/02/27/prca0227.htm

 

And useful, sane, observations follow:-

 

"Taping medical advice allows for better patient compliance," said family medicine specialist Carolyn J. Oliver, MD, founder of the nonprofit Cautious Patient Foundation, which advocates for patients.

 

Dr. Oliver said patients forget between 30% and 70% of what their doctor tells them within minutes of leaving the office.

 

Her foundation in December 2011 launched a project called "Your Doctor's Advice," which provides a cellphone application that records doctors' visits. Patients can ask physicians to repeat medical instructions at the end of a visit, or the patient can repeat the advice into the cellphone recorder. The recording is transferred to the patient's computer to replay at home. The recording also can be shared with relatives.

 

"The ultimate goal is to take the scientific evidence we have that patients only remember 60% of what [doctors] say and make it into something that patients can actually take home, so that their diseases get better," she said.

 

That sounds like sense to me. Good article.

 

Afterthought

 

Just in case there should be any medics reading this thread – and there have certainly be a few in the past – let's not anyone run away with the idea that it is only the hapless (i.e. supposedly ignorant, confused , inadequate, stressed, in any event unreasonable, whatever,) patient who has 'memory problems'.

 

Try giving legal advice to a doctor of the nature they find 'difficult' re' let us say, the prospect of financial reversal of fortune through matrimonial problems, a substantial but failed 'business venture 'on the side', professional negligence, tax 'irregularities' etc., and you will find that they are extremely confused and inarticulate; have totally failed to marshal the relevant information in advance; are frequently unable to tell 'the whole truth' at one interview; and cannot remember a blind thing accurately, beyond the detailed letter confirming the advice given you subsequently send them – always assuming they haven't lost it.

 

And there isn't one of them who would be satisfied with a seven-and-a-half-minute dialogue to address their problems.

 

Just thought I would keep things 'in balance', there.

Edited April 15, 2012 by nolegion

[turboandy]

nolegion,

 

i have come to realise that until we form some sort of petition requesting that video recording or otherwise be allowed to be used in doctor/patient consultations, and sent it to parliament, we will always have to suffer this injustice. How about it? I'm sure the politicians could soon realise that this would in the long run save the NHS money, by preventing the need for compensation claims.

[nolegion]

Andy, I would promptly sign up to any petition aimed at improving honesty, courtesy and candour in the NHS, tomorrow, the next day and forever thereafter.

 

That would include one which sought the right to a video recording – though in all frankness, I believe it would be doomed to failure. It is of course absurd that the medical profession can find it useful, helpful, informative blah-de-blah to make video recordings of patients' consultations\presentations\treatments but rears up like a nervy horse when it is suggested that patients might want to do the same. But it does, for now.

 

As regards audio recording, I think the tide has now, just about, and immensely grudgingly, turned - within the couple of years this thread has been running, indeed. Your own case is a thoroughly useful demonstration of that, I think. You made the PCT back down, and I have no doubt at all that others are learning from the experience you have reported.

 

Keep well, and please let's know of any developments..

[nolegion]

As regards that reluctant turn of the tide, 'spot the difference', here:-

 

 

Department of Health, January 2002

 

"We do not accept the recommendation that patients should be provided with tape recording facilities if they wish to record a discussion with a health care professional. We believe that such a move might undermine the trust relationship between professional and patient."

 

This is from the DoH response to the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry, at p. 31:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4059479.pdf

 

 

British Medical Association, May 2011

 

" The BMA supports the use of tape-recording facilities for recording a discussion with a healthcare professional when a diagnosis or course of treatment is being discussed, when the aim is to assist patients to understand and recall facts."

 

'This is from the BMA's ('medical ethics department's') gloss on the rules about doctors making recordings of patients, revised by the GMC last year, at p.5:

http://www.bma.org.uk/images/takingusingvisualaudiorecordings2011_tcm41-206783.pdf

 

 

Sadly, I do not believe the change has come about through any fundamental change of heart amongst clinicians in the NHS or their managers - i.e. towards candour and accountability – whatsoever.

 

The apparent revision of attitude is due to ever more powerful, available and affordable technology in the hands of patients. They would still ban it they could, but they can't. Try that, and patients will record anyway, just covertly -.and that truth is now, at last, beginning to 'sink in'.

[turboandy]

So nolegion,

 

What does the law say in respect of the patients RIGHTS to honest and accountable behavior by medical professionals?

 

In keeping those who are following my case up to date, i haven't responded to Somerset PCT's last letter they sent me regarding my healthcare, as it requires further study. However, i am currently working with a solicitor who has had recent success in suing the NHS for liable, and i hope to be pushing forward with bringing my own case to court shortly.

 

In the meantime i am still without medical support and my condition is still deteriorating. I will not permit any medical professional to assess me without video recording as i know from previous experience that they can not be trusted period. Every single time i have presented without video recording facilities the PCT have removed me from their registers and put me on the tackling violent patients register for threatening behavior.

 

As i stated before, North Somerset PCT and North Somerset Council have had me in court 2 times now for this alleged offense of Section 5 public order, and both times i have been found NOT guilty.

 

This summer i plan to mount a public awareness campaigning outside of the PCT's headquarters and other various tactical locations. I will put on public display key evidence of their wrong doings for all to see. My dignity will be lost, but it's a small price to pay for justice. I expect the local media will be involved too. Someone must make a stand against this kind of oppression and i am forced into to being that person it seems.

 

I watched a film today about an public incident that happened last year, (what wasn't covered on the main news again) in where, 'we the public' rise up and demand justice. It sort of prevails.

 

It convinced me that i should persist in doing what i am doing with regards to demanding honest and open healthcare. Here's the link for those of you who still feel standing up for your rights is futile.

 

http://paradigmshift.tv/view/broadcast/971

 

Enjoy the wake up call.

Edited April 18, 2012 by turboandy

[turboandy]

It has come to my attention that the links on that site don't work, here are the Youtube versions part 1 & 2

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1z5wFkZuvY&list=UU1QXEiQLPWXUkn5C80DjDAg&index=4&feature=plcp

[turboandy]

very interesting read those 2 documents. nice find nolegion.

 

as for the quote "We do not accept the recommendation that patients should be provided with tape recording facilities if they wish to record a discussion with a health care professional. We believe that such a move might undermine the trust relationship between professional and patient."

 

What gives the DoH the impression anyone actually is stupid enough to ever TRUST a healthcare professional anyway. I never have and never will. That is my god given right, until at least that trust has been earnt.

 

I could easily fill the next ten pages on this thread with news articles i found from just looking on the net over the past few months, of serious negligence cases where patients have died as a direct result from "healthcare professionals", who fobbed them off with lame excuses and sent them home without correct diagnosis or treatment.

[nolegion]

I couldn't agree with you more about the 'trust' excuse, Andy. I really must get round to a making list of these often-encountered but pathetic 'whines'.

The argument that ,"You need to trust me and therefore I will seek to prevent you having a recording of how I advise you," is simply intellectually and morally offensive. I won't retrieve the details of your case at this point, but I do remember from the correspondence you linked some while back that the PCT tried it on with you (and failed). It's just bunkum, and always was, from the Bristol Inquiry response to the current day.

Talking of 'pathetic whines', if anyone else has also had a chance to look at the source document for the BMA's 'revised' attitude linked earlier, they may have spotted:-

"Doctors worry, however, if they feel that they are being recorded for future complaints or litigation, and may be less likely to want to express opinions freely."

It is patients who should be worried if doctors think they are consulting negligently, and I couldn't care less about 'free expression';I believe that patients want considered, competent and courteous 'expression of opinion', and if doctors need to modify their behaviour to achieve that, then the sooner they are encouraged so to 'modify' the better.

Thanks for revising the programme links, Andy. I confess I tried the old ones a few times earlier today, and I thought it was just me being dense. I note the new ones do 'fly' and I will find time to watch them properly in due course.

[turboandy]

Thank you nolegion for sharing the quote about 'doctors worry etc', i did notice that and highlighted it when i read the report. All too true im afraid.

 

It is the public's right, not to have to fear unfair removal from their doctors surgeries for daring to challenge or complain about what has been said by their doctor. It is the public's right not to have to fear prosecution from incompetent GP's and corrupt PCT's that would rather criminalise those who challenge them, than make themselves accountable for THEIR mistakes.

 

They have caused this dilemma, not us the public. Just pick up any copy of any tabloid these days to read about people who have died as a result of misdiagnosis and then the doctor responsible has still been allowed to practice because no-one could prove otherwise. This need to video record is not based on making doctors look stupid, it's about protecting those who haven't yet suffered at the hands of incompetent doctors.

 

I live just down the road from the Avonmouth bridge near Bristol where recently, a poor man jumped to his death because he couldn't take the pain and suffering he was in any longer. He claimed that his GP refused to treat him for his condition. here's the link,

 

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/AGONY-MAN-LEAP-M5-BRIDGE/story-11293773-detail/story.html

 

This is the reason why we the public MUST change this attitude of non-video recording of healthcare professionals. They have been able to duck and dive the legalities of their responsibilities to their patients for a long time now, mainly because of a lack of evidence. As i stated before, if they act appropriately and don't tell lies as they have been proven to do on many occasions, then they would have nothing to fear from us the public.

[nolegion]

So far as I have been able to spot the last couple of weeks have been a time of very definite progress for those wishing to obtain recordings of benefits medicals. The DWP is being pressed to roll out its new scheme properly while at the same time it has been driven to admit it would NOT be illegal for claimants to take a secret recording themselves ( - although it still won't permit them to do it overtly, unless ridiculous preconditions are met).

 

I have commented on the latter point in the benefits forum, but I think for once we can have pal Jim's FoI response here as well:-

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/110554/response/275405/attach/2/FOI3066%201283%20Response%2020.04.12.pdf

 

It simply emphasises that it is NOT against the law for private individuals to do this in such circumstances, and if you try to make life difficult for those who would prefer to record overtly, what do you expect?

 

Up to this point, and quiet specifically, the DWP had claimed it would in some way breach the law. It doesn't.

 

(And BTW: if you get that far, the tentative garble in the DWP response about acting as a 'data controller' and perhaps needing to notify the ICO if you intend to publish, is, for a private individual in most circumstances, simply 'rot', given the ICO's view of the ample scope of the 'personal use' exemption in the Data Protection Act.)

 

And here's a couple of contrasting stories from last year:-

 

 

Dictaphone saves man from prison

Secret tape recording clears him of charges brought by social services

 

A MAN who was cleared of all charges after secretly recording a meeting with social workers on his dictaphone, has called for an independent team to monitor social workers.

 

Lovel Brian Dennis was accused of affray, threat to kill, assault and criminal damage, stemming from two separate encounters with social workers from Hackney Council’s Learning and Disability department as he tried to get social services to let him take care of his brother, who has Downs Syndrome.

 

Dennis was accused of swearing and threatening council officials in the first encounter, while in the second he was alleged to have pushed a social worker against a wall.

 

However, due to evidence from his recordings and conflicting testimony from a prosecution witness, Dennis was found not guilty last month at Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London.

 

A relieved Dennis told The Voice: "This is the wisest £50 I’ve ever spent in my life, because if I didn’t spend this £50, as the barrister said in the court, I would’ve got three to six years. I would hope that there would be a body that can monitor social services and see that they’re conducting their duties properly."

 

See more from The Voice online, here:-

http://archive.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=19493

　

 

While this doctor duly got convicted:-

 

'Peeping Tom' doctor banned after rigging up cameras in bathrooms

 

A hospital doctor rigged up spy cameras in his bathroom and a female colleague's and videoed two colleagues showering.

 

Cardiologist Vivek Baliga, 33, who appeared before Leeds Crown Court, recorded the doctors naked scenes on his laptop…

 

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039479/Doctor-rigged-cameras-bathrooms-filmed-female-medics-showering.html#ixzz1t4CRLyOi

[turboandy]

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

 

If you want to keep your freedom and stay out of prison, my warning to you all is....RECORD EVERYTHING you say and do when dealing with the NHS, DWP, local councils, DVLA and any authority you need to correspond with.

 

As i speak from experience on this serious matter, i fully recomend VIDEO recording when entering the complaints process, as you will most likely find they will use every dirty trick in the book to turn the tables on you.

 

I rest my case.

[My Turn]

Dictaphone saves man from prison

Secret tape recording clears him of charges brought by social services

 

A MAN who was cleared of all charges after secretly recording a meeting with social workers on his dictaphone, has called for an independent team to monitor social workers.

 

Lovel Brian Dennis was accused of affray, threat to kill, assault and criminal damage, stemming from two separate encounters with social workers from Hackney Council’s Learning and Disability department as he tried to get social services to let him take care of his brother, who has Downs Syndrome.

 

Dennis was accused of swearing and threatening council officials in the first encounter, while in the second he was alleged to have pushed a social worker against a wall.

 

However, due to evidence from his recordings and conflicting testimony from a prosecution witness, Dennis was found not guilty last month at Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London.

 

A relieved Dennis told The Voice: "This is the wisest £50 I’ve ever spent in my life, because if I didn’t spend this £50, as the barrister said in the court, I would’ve got three to six years. I would hope that there would be a body that can monitor social services and see that they’re conducting their duties properly."

 

Hello Nolegion, I wonder if the social workers and hospital staff whose allegations were shown to be false by the recordings were subsequently charged with contempt for the deliberate falsehoods they told the court or for harrassment for knowingly pursing a false claim against the defendant, Lovell Dennis.

 

It is also interesting to note that the court admitted the recordings as evidence.

 

All in all this seems quite an interesting case. Even more so as I was already aware of the poor reputation of his hospital with respect to poor handling of some of their patients. I wonder if the summing up or verdict of the trial is available somewhere? I would like to read that.

 

-My Turn