OT: Nurse Jacintha Saldanha

BlackSpinner wrote:

grillhead wrote:

Lizistired wrote:I'm over the OT crap. I'm going back to SA topics or going away. This forum has suffered enough in substance and credibility.
If you are looking for a social network, FB is good for that. This forum provided a valuable platform form me and a wealth of information when I faced OSA and needed informations and answers. Sadly over the last year, that seems to have become a platform for bantering of personal opinions, to the point that new OSA patients come here and don't get answers...
This isn't a place for politics or BS. There was a time when that was balanced, but it seems that time has passed.

I have been pondering about this kind of stuff as far as this board goes for a few days now. Why isn't there different topic areas set up? There are endless posts of the same thing over and over and over and over again, 1391 pages worth! There is no rhyme or reason to it! Can't they set this board up like pretty much every other board in the world with topics? Seriously, it would help alot!

Do a search. This gets covered at least once every 3 months. You will get hundreds of hits. Read them.

Did a search for "subforum". Found 13 matches. Also found this quote from this thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9384&hilit=subforum):

johnnygoodman wrote:Greetings,

We had a "divide" vs "don't divide" debate a few months back. At the time "don't divide" won out. However, we will obviously have to pay the piper eventually and make all of this content organized.

I'm thinking of upgrading CPAPtalk to allow the tagging of posts into categories. Then, when you visited, you would see everything up front but could drill as desired.

Johnny

This being said in 2006 shows that they knew at sometime or another they should break up the information. But I did find also where it had been talked about not to get rid of the "bucket board" if you will. I also noted that many of the people that were for not changing it are the same people that seem to live on this board. Yes, there are some that are here alot and give good advice, but quite honestly it seems like it someone doesn't agree with an old timer they are berated and belittled. This is a xPAP board to find help for that. Someone searches on here and finds 500 threads that say exactly the same thing, and alot of that is because it is in total disorder. Or, one person makes a single thread for every single issue that they have instead of making one thread for themselves to track their own progress, hence 1300+ pages. I'm sure I will be crucified for going against the grain and the hierarchy but I've seen it time and time and time again in these threads, and I've pretty much had my fill myself. I think I'll go back to my lurker status and dig around for the information that I need.

I think I'll go back to my lurker status and dig around for the information that I need.

Fine, but also don't be shy about asking a question. I have looked at many date stamps and people are getting multiple answers quickly to just about any question.

The categories deal is suspect IMO. CPAP is a process and if you change one part it affects other parts. I would be careful about categorization.

It looks like executing this therapy is a little science and a lot of art, thus you get contradictory answers. I can live with that.

(Disclosure: I had hardly any problems from the start of my therapy and that is not true for most who ask questions here.)

I find it odd that this is being referred to as merely an immature and stupid prank, etc.

In most jurisdictions, including the United States, it is a criminal offense, called "pretexting" to impersonate a person authorized to receive medical information, in order to thereby unlawfully obtain that information. It doesn't have to be a prominent person. It could be you.

It would be very surprising if there was not a similar law in the criminal code of Great Britain.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcweberto ... ger-issue/

FORBES: Kate Middleton's Medical Information: The Larger Issue

The NHS (National Health Service) Act of 2006, Section 251 is clear that information can be disclosed without a patient’s consent only in two instances: if the disclosure is required by law or if the disclosure is in the public interest, unless the patient has explicitly refused consent or is incapable of giving consent. The penalty for improper disclosure in the NHS Act is up a fine of up to 5000 Pounds, or about $7500. In addition, there can be criminal penalties for disclosure of medical information under the Data Protection Act of 1998.

In the U.S. there are federal and state statutes that deal with many forms of private information, including medical, banking, credit, tax, and telephone records.

Medical records and private information of patients in America, such as was disclosed in England, is covered in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) offers federal protection and enforcement of rights for medical information. The Security Rule sets forth a series of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to assure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of protected information stored electronically.

The information that was released by the nurses at King Edward VII Hospital would be considered, in America, as “Individually identifiable health information” under HIPAA. This is data including demographic information that relates to:

the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
the provision of health care to the individual, or
the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual, and
that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe can be used to identify the individual.

Suppose you or a loved one was admitted to the hospital for a highly personal and perhaps embarassing illness or treatment, or whatever it was you just didn't want it shared with others, and someone at your workplace called the hospital, impersonated a person you had authorized the hospital to share the condition/treatment with, and then broadcast the information provided all over your workplace or professional associates, let alone all over the world by radio.

Would you consider it merely a stupid, silly "prank" or violation of your rights of privacy protected by law?

Respectfully,

Nate

Well Ugly, it seems you didn't take kindly to the fact I admitted to having not read the entire article. Here you go, I've got more time now... a quote from an article regarding the three suicide notes she left:

"One note deals with the hoax call from 2DayFM's Michael Christian and Mel Grieg, another details her requests for her funeral, and the third addresses her employers, the hospital, and contains criticism of staff there."

TheUglyTruth wrote:

ughwhatname wrote:
I saw a piece of an article

NateS wrote:
Suppose you or a loved one was admitted to the hospital for a highly personal and perhaps embarassing illness or treatment, or whatever it was you just didn't want it shared with others, and someone at your workplace called the hospital, impersonated a person you had authorized the hospital to share the condition/treatment with, and then broadcast the information provided all over your workplace or professional associates, let alone all over the world by radio.

Would you consider it merely a stupid, silly "prank" or violation of your rights of privacy protected by law?

Respectfully,

Nate

I'm far more worried that the next time I need to get information over the phone about a hospitalized relative - information that I need to have and am entitled to have - that it will be harder to get because of this.

GROW UP PEOPLE!!!!!

You have much more important matters happening in you own country!!!!

[/quote]

I'm far more worried that the next time I need to get information over the phone about a hospitalized relative - information that I need to have and am entitled to have - that it will be harder to get because of this.[/quote]



I had a friend hospitalized recently and the hospital issued a six digit number as identification. So long as I knew that number, I could get any information about my friend. She had given permission to release any information about her to anyone who had that number.

Why the hospital where Kate was staying doesn't utilize such a system is quite the mystery, particularly since they serve the royals.

MidnightOwl wrote:

NateS wrote:
Suppose you or a loved one was admitted to the hospital for a highly personal and perhaps embarassing illness or treatment, or whatever it was you just didn't want it shared with others, and someone at your workplace called the hospital, impersonated a person you had authorized the hospital to share the condition/treatment with, and then broadcast the information provided all over your workplace or professional associates, let alone all over the world by radio.

Would you consider it merely a stupid, silly "prank" or violation of your rights of privacy protected by law?

Respectfully,

Nate

I'm far more worried that the next time I need to get information over the phone about a hospitalized relative - information that I need to have and am entitled to have - that it will be harder to get because of this.

I'm a nurse. If you are not the name listed in the "emergency contact" section of my patients chart then you are not entitled to have ANY information, including whether or not that person is actually a patient at my facility, and you are not getting that info from me, no matter how much you try to talk me into it, because that would be a violation of the HIPPA law, and I can and will lose my job over it.

HIPPA is an extremely serious thing in the US. I'm not sure if they have a similar law abroad. But if this happened in the US you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as this thing aired, those 2 nurses would have been hauled into the administrators office and if not fired immediately, then made to believe in no uncertain terms that their heads where on the chopping blocks.

We do not know what transpired between the nurses and the hospital. I think it was not good. And the hospital will cover it up like a cat in a litter box.

I find it odd that this is being referred to as merely an immature and stupid prank, etc.

In most jurisdictions, including the United States, it is a criminal offense, called "pretexting" to impersonate a person authorized to receive medical information, in order to thereby unlawfully obtain that information. It doesn't have to be a prominent person. It could be you.

I believe what they did was wrong. But at the same time, they clearly never expected to get past the first person. And they NEVER asked for any information on her condition. They asked to speak to her. When they were put on hold, they were surprised that they were being put through. The nurse that came on after that explained that she was sleeping and then continued on with information about her condition. They never asked for that information.

That said, whoever made the decision to actually air that information was way over the line. It should never have been offered by the nurse, or aired on the radio, tv, etc.

opticalpopsicle wrote:
We do not know what transpired between the nurses and the hospital. I think it was not good. And the hospital will cover it up like a cat in a litter box.

Exactly.

What I can't understand is why so many posting in this thread have seized on the note about the prank call and are entirely willing to overlook the longer note complaining about the staff and management at the hospital.

Maybe because the media emphasized "suicide by prank call"? This is the only way they could get a big story out of it. "Suicide due to pissed off at bosses and coworkers" would have been a minor story.

I also don't buy the invented romantic story about honor suicide. Honor suicide is hardly known in India. There is a problem in south India, where this nurse comes from, with high incident of suicide among women. But it is due to high abuse of women by spouses and others in the close community.

Suppose you or a loved one was admitted to the hospital for a highly personal and perhaps embarassing illness or treatment, or whatever it was you just didn't want it shared with others, and someone at your workplace called the hospital, impersonated a person you had authorized the hospital to share the condition/treatment with, and then broadcast the information provided all over your workplace or professional associates, let alone all over the world by radio.

Would you consider it merely a stupid, silly "prank" or violation of your rights of privacy protected by law?

Weak argument trying to use emotion by turning the case on the opponent.

There is no indication the Duchess or the Queen or any other members of the family were offended because the public found out the Duchess had morning sickness and did not "retch on the second nurse".

Try developing a better argument if you want to advance your weak case.

rights of privacy protected by law

HIPAA is a silly, costly and dangerous law passed by an ever-growing government that is creeping daily into more mundane aspects of our lives.

I won't give you the details but there is an anecdote involving HIPAA and my dying mother that caused unnecessary stress in our family. These laws may have good intentions (I am not entirely sure about that) but the idiots that propose and write them never think about the unintended consequences and the costs.

I suppose HIPAA was written because some Congressman was worried that his colleagues might find out he had a hemorrhoid operation over recess.

Put me on a jury when HIPAA is used against a medical practice. Not guilty your honor! Throw the prosecutor in the pokey for frivolous prosecution!

Eddie Fasolino wrote:
HIPAA is a silly, costly and dangerous law passed by an ever-growing government that is creeping daily into more mundane aspects of our lives.

And a solution (and another bureaucracy) in search of a problem.

KSMike wrote:

Eddie Fasolino wrote:
HIPAA is a silly, costly and dangerous law passed by an ever-growing government that is creeping daily into more mundane aspects of our lives.

And a solution (and another bureaucracy) in search of a problem.

Actually, the original intent of HIPAA was good, but as is typical with human beings, too many cooks in the kitchen took it in directions it was never originally intended, turning into a typical C.F. of our government.

Worse, it blossomed into privacy laws that have nothing to do with health information, making it so you can't even find out basic information about your own family members, even if to help or protect them.

Typical human stupidity. Take something good and ruin it.

Madalot wrote:

KSMike wrote:

Eddie Fasolino wrote:
HIPAA is a silly, costly and dangerous law passed by an ever-growing government that is creeping daily into more mundane aspects of our lives.

And a solution (and another bureaucracy) in search of a problem.

Actually, the original intent of HIPAA was good, but as is typical with human beings, too many cooks in the kitchen took it in directions it was never originally intended, turning into a typical C.F. of our government.

Worse, it blossomed into privacy laws that have nothing to do with health information, making it so you can't even find out basic information about your own family members, even if to help or protect them.

Typical human stupidity. Take something good and ruin it.

In my experience hipaa often gets used as an excuse for secretiveness and cover ups even where it doesn't apply at all. People who would refuse to give you information before it was passed because they were the "professionals" and you were dirt now happily claim hipaa prevents it. Or administrators falsely tell their subordinates that "hipaa" is the problem. I've also found a number of professionals who have no problem getting information to relatives that need it. So I don't think it's a simple as bad laws victimizing honest, good willed practioners. At least not all the time.

Edited to add: I am not saying that everyone that quotes hipaa does it incorrectly or in bad faith. Just that I have known it to happen.

In my experience hipaa often gets used as an excuse for secretiveness and cover ups even where it doesn't apply at all. People who would refuse to give you information before it was passed because they were the "professionals" and you were dirt now happily claim hipaa prevents it. Or administrators falsely tell their subordinates that "hipaa" is the problem. I've also found a number of professionals who have no problem getting information to relatives that need it. So I don't think it's a simple as bad laws victimizing honest, good willed practioners. At least not all the time.

This is just another example of "unintended consequences" of legislation. Our legislative branch should know by now that every new law has unintended consequences. But they continue to write new legislation without considering that it will create unintended consequences.

A basic fallacy of liberalism is that things are measured by their good intentions and not by the results. Sad.