Secret medical recordings ‘reprehensible’ but allowed as evidence

A short report from the Law Society Gazette:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/se...sible-but-allowed-as-evidence/5101817.article

Original case report here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/2623.html

An extract which shows what the claimant was up against:

1. 
   

 

now I am curious to know what happened to mrs mustard. Is it not time the judge recognised that many so called experts will say whatever is in the best interest of their paymaster .

 

Not sure what could be considered reprehensible about this. The content of a medical consult should be the property of the patient with no exceptions. There is literally no other way to deal with incompetent and malicious physicians and, sadly, they are legion. The behavior that some display behind closed doors is frankly shocking and needs to be exposed. This should happen way more often, if not the default.

I have never dealt with this level of malicious incompetence, but the notes from the physicians shown here are of someone who clearly should never have been granted a medical license and is highly unprofessional, clearly confusing the voices in their heads for something other people should hear and should be written down.

 

Mustard v Flower & Ors ???

Are they using fake names to protect identity? I would quite like an alternate identity with the name of Mrs Mustard i.e. the wife of Colonel Mustard from Cluedo. Or perhaps Mrs Peacock or Miss Scarlett.

 

The idea, which I would agree with in principle, is probably that secret recording would undermine relations in an atmosphere of good faith.

Of course it would be naive (especially for a judge - I mean, come on) to suppose that this medico-legal process plays out in good faith. It looks so poisonous and underhanded, as you say, that maybe we would expect surveillance improve the situation.

On the other hand, if it's an arms race between patients and insurance companies/employers/the state, corporations and government have the resources to totally surveil individuals in public to manufacture evidence in their interest. We know this already happens to some degree, in some cases. Not to mention squads of lawyers who can sit around figuring out how to abuse laws in their favor.

In any case I would agree that bringing transparency to the methods used by these actors should be beneficial. Given the power asymmetry it also seems that regulations should favor individuals much more strongly in this process so as to avoid a constantly losing 'arms race'.

 

in the library with the lead pipe ?

 

See also:
https://www.civillitigationbrief.co...rts-statement-of-an-interview-was-unreliable/

 

My GP surgery already records all patient appointments. I have no idea whether voices are recorded or not (I suspect they are, but who knows), but pictures definitely are. I know these recordings are being made because there were announcements made to patients when they started, but the surgery hasn't mentioned them again since. I don't think they would deny doing it, but they don't make it obvious what they are doing.

So, if the GPs are doing it, why should it be different for the patients?

 

Think this phrase has a definite resonance!

"There are examples of experts being less than accurate in their account....."

It is relevant to so much of what "experts" and others, such as Benefit Assessors say in relation to ME.

 

I am twenty years out of date, but when I worked in the NHS the guidelines were no recording, video or audio, without the patient’s consent and then such could only subsequently used within the scope of that original consent.

When videoing, I would also ask if I could video the formal granting of consent, particularly in situations where written consent was not an option.

I had always assumed that this had a legal basis, but in retrospect I am not sure what basis I had for that assumption.

Presumably in the @Arnie Pye example of the GP surgery recording all consultations, all patients should be have been [informed] at some point in time that this was happening, then it is assumed asking for an appointment involves tacit consent to the recording. However if it is happening without the patient’s knowledge and at least tacit consent, it is certainly something I would be very unhappy about.

 

See the below link for the General Medical Council's guidance on this:

https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guid...using-visual-and-audio-recordings-of-patients

 

When I referred to my surgery making recordings of consultations with patients I remember that I was under the impression at the time that the main impetus for the recordings was security, for use as evidence if a doctor or other member of staff was attacked. I'm not sure that the recordings were intended as a permanent record to be kept with the patient's medical records. But I can't remember exactly what was said at the time the information about recordings was made public and I can't find any reference to these video recordings on the surgery's web site.

It's just occurred to me to wonder, if the surgery changed the purpose of the recordings i.e. they decided to keep recordings of some or all individual patients long term, they could do so without changing their physical set up. (Rhetorical question.) Would they admit to such a change of use?

 

strangely I expected this reply sooner still makes me smile thanks .

 

Why would anyone smoke lead? Is that a thing?

This is not a question I'm actually asking. It's just the first question I asked myself when I read that sentence.

I think I need a nap...