> In court filings, the hospital and ABC do not dispute that they did not have consent from Mr. Chanko or his family, but they say the patient is not identifiable to the public. The network has asserted that because “NY Med” is produced by its news division, it is protected by the First Amendment. Lawyers for NewYork-Presbyterian have argued that the state does not recognize a common law right to privacy and that any privacy right Mr. Chanko did have ended upon his death. They say that the Chankos themselves are responsible for their loss of privacy.
If this isn't a massive HIPAA violation then it SHOULD Be. The fact his wife and likely others could identify him just proves that simply blurring out his face does not protect his privacy(!).
Blaming the family just makes me hate these people. They're profiting off of the misery and suffering of others (see the quote by the hospital PR guy earlier in the article), and it is wrong.
But the US is all about profit over people so this kind of thing is just a natural progression of what is already going on in all kinds of areas.
> The family did not know until the episode was broadcast that a camera was focusing on the closed door of the room where they had gathered and that audio of Dr. Schubl was being recorded.
That is got to be illegal, right..? If not that is super immoral.
These people have absolutely no conscience at all. The doctor should have their medical licence reviewed for serious ethical lapses.
This is the same show and same hospital NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital where a nurse was fired due to an Instagram photo she posted of a messy ER room (without anyone in it) the hospital administrators deemed insensitive.
The article states that the hospital didn't actually make money off of the show. It was all about publicity, so that when you or a loved one is hurt, their name is the first one to come to mind.
They got the publicity all right, just not the kind that they wanted. Now NewYork-Presbyterian will be known as that hospital that tried to get publicity out of their patient's suffering.
Just to clarify, if given the choice between two hospitals: "St. Joseph's Hospital" and "John Smith's Hospital" and you hear that the former has a statistically significant advantage in the area of care that your loved one needs...
you would choose the second one, because of its name?
frankly, I live in a country where only old ones have a religious name (for historical reasons, they are owned buy public entities), the new ones bear the name of a famous doctor, and the free ambulance will send you to the closest public one (unless it's specialized, like extended burns, then it's probably free helicopter to the relevant hospital).
I'm still curious of how carefully selected the publicly available positive statistics on an hospital having a marketing department and operating on a competitive basis are.
I don't know; it's like identifying yourself in anonymized data. It's like getting anonymized data for a study and there, you see things only you know correspond to you and then say, ha! they released my data, see here, this is my data!
So, i say I don't know because there is voice --which they should have filtered out.
She wasn't the patient. HIPAA requires the patient's consent to disclose information to ANYONE, including spouses. If she was able to determine information about the medical care provided to her husband that he hadn't consented to, that's a violation.
Holy shit does anyone else see a huge problem with filming a fucking reality show in an E.R? Distracting and intruding upon medical professionals doing their jobs when lives are at stake to make a TV show? Thats absurd!
"distracting" and "intruding" are your words. Before a crew goes in, there is a lot of explanation about who should act how and what is off limits. im not saying some crew folks don't mess up stuff, but it is a very small minority. most crews just do their jobs and follow the rules.
Of course, with the NHS there is a general feel good factor in that we get to see our tax money being used to do good. Indeed I have seen criticisms of 24 Hours in A&E that because it generally shows the NHS is a positive light and as the NHS is pretty unashamedly a socialist endeavor that shows likes this are politically biased!
Well its made by Channel 4, so it's a private company that entered into the arrangement. A BUPA hospital would want to be shown in a positive light just to let a camera through the door, so I don't see why an NHS hospital should be any different.
I mean honestly, how mentally challenged do you have to be to think any organization is going to enter an agreement like that and not set restrictions on the tone.
Would you willingly let someone into your house to film you without them agreeing to make you look good? Would you agree if they told you they were going to cut it so all the audience sees is you arguing with your wife and kids?
So it's either going to be positive or not exist, and that's not because it's the NHS.
The French precursor to "the Naked survival show that i am misnaming" had a contestant die and the medic who lost him commit suicide. denmark had a show in which naked women come on and get their body shape judged by 2 old white men.
TV is shit. we all know it. we all say it when we want to sound cultured. whenever i hear someone expressing shock at content or attaching specific cultures to TV themes i must always wonder at the size of the rock they live under.
I was going for a joke. And, technically, I live under a roof made of tiles.
However, I have never owned a TV — though, yes Jules, I am aware that there is an invention called television, and that , on that invention, they show shows.
Also, for my own curiosity, could you actually name the French show you were referring to?
I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.
As I understand it, it's legally best to get signed papers from the people involved, or limit filming to public places. But there are ways to broadcast something even if it was filmed in a private area and you don't have permission of the person filmed. The most obvious thing to do is to blur out the person's face, which the show did here. I believe that there is an exception for "hot news" items (although this obviously didn't involve hot news) and there are always obvious arguments about freedom of the press.
This is mainly an area of state law, so the rules will be different across the US. The two big issues are right of publicity and right of privacy ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity , http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Privacy ). The hospital is apparently arguing that New York's right of publicity doesn't cover this case. I have no idea if that is correct.
HIPAA also comes into the picture (federal law, with many similar state laws). I'm certainly no expert on HIPAA, but it seems to me that the obvious argument would be that the hospital didn't release any private medical information, and if the hospital is held responsible for information revealed by the show, the "medical information" was along the lines of "he's dead" and not "he has an STD that he'd prefer to keep private."
This is a case where it's asking how the law applies, how the law should apply, and what kind of reaction the general public should have. The show was certainly insensitive to the family, and the hospital's reputation should take a severe hit. And that applies regardless of what laws might have been broken.
I am also not a lawyer. But I did once work in a health-related field and had to go through HIPAA compliance training. And the general issue is that simply blurring out a face isn't enough.
The definition of Protected Health Information (PHI) is interpreted broadly, such that the fact that a patient was in the ER due to an accident, received certain types of treatment and died is protected.
Meanwhile, the definition of what is personally identifiable (i.e., ties information about condition/treatment to a specific person) includes an 18-point list of potential identifiers; responsible practice is to remove all of these prior to making information public. That 18-point list includes both the geographic location of the treatment (should not be given in any form more specific than the state) and the date of treatment (should not be given in a form more specific than the year).
So I can see a strong argument that the hospital is on the wrong side of HIPAA here. And given that their argument seems mostly to be "it wasn't Our Hospital Medical Services, Inc., it was Our Hospital TV News Productions, Inc., and that one isn't covered by HIPAA", I'd begin to suspect they believe it would be a HIPAA violation for the hospital, too.
Consider if footage existed of the deceased being hit by the sanitation truck – the original injury that sent Mr. Chanko to the hospital.
Could a news report about vehicle-pedestrian accidents use that footage, even without the victim's permission?
I suspect probably so, for its illustrative value. As a matter of sensitivity to viewers or the victim's family, they might blur any particularly gory details, or the precise identifying characteristics of the victim or others involved.
And that's roughly what they did in the hospital, too. The crew was filming in an area they had permission to, and blurred identifying details. A very small number of people – who knew the incident, the hospital, the doctor, the victim – could work out who was being shown. That's emotionally draining, perhaps, but I'm not sure it's legally tortious, and requiring a court-enforced remedy.
The hospital room may be private, but it's the hospital that can waive the privacy, not the patient (I believe).
Saying that, I've never worked with any producer that wouldn't see that as a huge red flag (although I haven't worked much in reality tv either in quite a few years).
It depends. From what I understand, in some states there are consent laws which prevent recording if both parties do not consent to it. It would appear that New York is not one of these states, but if this happened in my home state it would certainly be grounds for a civil suit.
There are certainly educational benefits to filming ERs and frequently crews would not be able to get permission from patients prior to filming. So personally, I see no problem with the filming. But, before any viewings or editing of the recording, permission should be gained from the patient or –if the patient did not survive– the patient's family. In the United States, something like what happened to the Chanko family should absolutely be prohibited by HIPAA and the hospital should be severely fined!
Just googling "HIPAA death" seems to suggest the right to privacy extends 50 years after death:
"The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of the individual"
Reality show world is really grasping at straws. Every single one wants to be the next Duck Dynasty and you have all bunch of crazy and strange ideas. In this case they are messing with people's lives. I am just waiting for the meta-reality show -- a show about creating a reality TV show.
I don't think they are grasping at straws, the cable subscription model just means there are lots of people willing to fund what ends up being relatively cheap "original" programming.
I suppose a simple step forward would be to require that a broadcaster that is owned by a cable company must offer the channels individually (which probably wouldn't impact Disney, but a Comcast subsidiary shouldn't be using channel bundles to extract revenue from Comcast competitors).
Comcast would fight tooth and nail to prevent that. Comcast Sports Net is a huge contention point in negotiations with Verizon, RCN, etc. As far as it impacting Disney, ESPN is the most expensive cable channel you have. Debundling that would lose Disney a lot of money. Disney wouldn't let that happen.
Sure, I'm not saying the big industry players would enjoy it, I'm saying I think it would be reasonable regulation (there aren't really big technical efficiencies from integrating production and distribution, especially once you are already doing outside distribution).
I think it wouldn't impact Disney because they aren't really a player in traditional distribution (but they play online with a stake in Hulu and other efforts, but those are sort of already unbundled, I think because they envision better revenues that way).
What grounds would regulators have to tell these private businesses they have to distribute that way? Would it just be the creation of a new law requiring it, and that's that? I'm not sure how those sorts of things work, it's well out of my expertise, but I'm legitimately curious. In that scenario, could the company appeal the law?
This was actually a big deal a few years ago ( http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/12/your_cable_bil... ). The FCC thought it could create this requirement under its existing authority to regulate the airwaves, but the Supreme Court ruled that it would require a new law.
The economics of cable (and satellite) aren't obvious: it really doesn't cost any more to offer 150 channels instead of 100. The signal for every channel the cable company offers makes it to your house, and the cable company's equipment filters out the channels that you haven't paid for.
There's no reason to think it will cost less to get those channels filtered out one at a time instead of as bundles.
It would probably take legislation. The companies could certainly appeal the law, but I don't think it would be a massive expansion of antitrust authority.
I'm guessing the whole "Hello, I know you husband just died but would you mind if we put his death in a educational TV series designed to encourage people to become doctors" just doesn't across as sensitive. Could they have found the family later? Maybe, I don't know if the TV crew had access to the patient's name and family contact information, it is possible they could not contact the family even if they wanted to.
Wrong. The "TV Team", assuming you mean crew, are there to do a job. they are the operators. it is the job of the production company, the Agency, and the Location to communicate with standers-by and any relevant bodies in the vicinity. this may seem like a small point, but i am really tired of hearing consumers of media alternatively blame "the TV guys" and "Hollywood" for anything really good or really bad that shows up on their screen.
film and television are made all over the place. we have shitty people in charge just like every industry. there are nebulous regions in terms of legality just like every industry. there is always more to the story than what you are watching in "your" programs.
Regardless of legalities, this sort of show lacks taste or any shred of class, and merely tarnishes the hospital's name in pursuit of PR branding. And it's a travesty what was done to that family.
This is one time I hope their lawyers turn the screws on these corporations and extract as much capital as possible.
This family strikes me as litigious as hell. if they feel wronged that deeply, and they have the deep pockets that are essential to suing everyone in sight and running a media campaign (of which we are now all a part), then could they find it in their hearts to not sue the person who physically did all he could to help their dead relative? Why sue the doctor?
Because their lawyers said they had a chance at extracting money. Make no mistake; this is about money and pride. People get filmed dying nearly every day, and much of that death reel finds its way to the Public. These people have the means and, though this is a complete guess on my part, the experience to wage a lawsuit battle with a Hospital, a Production Company, and a Doctor.
I am very familiar with the heartlessness required to produce TV, especially reality TV. I hate it every time some dipshit redneck violates a suspect's rights on COPS by being vague, or someone having a horrible day gets mocked by the by-standers as their crappy car gets towed. We are a culture that indulges in the misery of others. Just because a few rich people tasted what everyone from low income areas eat for breakfast does not seem to me a good reason to flip the table and hunt down camera people.
I actually wanted to make an argument from the hospital's side of things: some of arguments the hospital's making sound heartless, but there's a very good chance that the hospital's insurance company came up with those arguments (well, the insurance company's lawyers).
It's hard to imagine a system more effective at upsetting people than the US legal system. There's a good chance that the family brought the doctor into the suit to get money from his insurance company. But they may not have had much choice. In the US, the court will spend a lot of time trying to decide if the right people were sued, and if people should be dropped or others added. I don't see how the doctor would have avoided getting sucked into the suit.
The lawyers will spend a lot of time negotiating behind the scenes. The family will try to get the judge to declare any liability "joint and several" which would allow the family to collect the full judgment (assuming there is one) from any of the parties, who then can work out the details among themselves.
The system encourages, and in some cases requires, this kind of manuevering. So don't assume the people involved are actually this weird, mean or heartless.
The doctor was complicit in doing something disgusting and, one hopes, illegal. Why wouldn't you name him in a lawsuit?
classicsnoot mentions that the doctor "physically did everything he could to help their dead relative" but that very obviously didn't include helping to preserve his patient's dignity by keeping a camera crew away from him.
What a nightmare. I'm still slightly in awe that a hospital would put their patients through this. That TV people would put someone through it is, of course, not shocking at all...
I have to wonder, have you not watched television lately? No intention of snark or derision, as i grew up w/o television. but if this seems like a heinous violation of privacy and/or dignity i shutter at the thought of your reaction to the internet.
Most medical incidents are recorded, many of them in multiple different formats. Your use of the term "TV people" is rather informative. Then again, you 'software people' are typically pretty obtuse when it comes to subjects outside of your collective and therefore indistinguishable command.
Until I get further information, I will assume the doctor wasn't actively involved in the show's production. I'll assume that the hospital announced one or more camera crews would be in the emergency room, and the doctor assumed the people editing the footage knew the relevant laws and would act professionally.
Even so, I don't see any way for the doctor to avoid being sued. But I really doubt he had much influence on the show.
The doctor was wearing a mic. I think it would be very hard to argue he wasn't involved in the production. He also has at least a moral obligation to protect the privacy of his patients. It's a shame these things end in lawsuits, but he does deserve some kind of punishment or reprimand. Maybe suspend his license for a few months.
I have never been involved in a reality TV show (and my job isn't exciting enough for the TV crews to come knocking) so I have to only guess how it works. But I would expect that wearing a microphone doesn't give the doctor much input on which segments to use, and that the doctor wouldn't have been involved in getting permissions from the patients and families.
It's obvious in this case that the show wasn't able to get permission from the family (and, given that the family was surprised; the show wasn't able to contact the family), so they blurred the guy's face and thought that made him unidentifiable. I don't believe the doctor had any influence on that decision.
> I'll assume that the hospital announced one or more camera crews would be in the emergency room
Okay, think about that. Just the thought of making critically injured people or their families deal with that (are they confronted by a release form? do they even get a choice, or do they have to go to a different ER if they want to receive treatment with some privacy? WTF?) is completely disgusting. The whole thing is trash that no medical professional should be involved in at all.
I can see how that could reflect poorly on the hospital, but it's less obvious to me that it reflects poorly on the doctors. Unless you expect the doctors to have refused to staff the emergency room until the camera crews left.
I think the doctors could have killed this scheme well before it came to whatever kind of standoff in the ER you're envisioning, and yes, they certainly should have. But they wanted to get paid.
In any case, it doesn't take an enormous amount of moral courage to say "there is no possible way this person or his family has consented to being filmed so I'm taking the microphone off and you are taking your cameras out of the room."
You are clearly unfamiliar with the nature of the relationship between doctors and the Hospital companies that employ them. They have little to no say in anything that happens on the grounds, and with typically high student loan debt and 'the resign' as their only real resort, they cannot make whiteknight stands on emotional bases.
Can we drop the "white knight" terminology? Doing something ethical doesn't make someone a mythological figure, it means they're living up to their moral obligations.
I'm sure a resident might have reasons to be intimidated. I'm sure there was also an attending physician.
If this isn't a massive HIPAA violation then it SHOULD Be. The fact his wife and likely others could identify him just proves that simply blurring out his face does not protect his privacy(!).
Blaming the family just makes me hate these people. They're profiting off of the misery and suffering of others (see the quote by the hospital PR guy earlier in the article), and it is wrong.
But the US is all about profit over people so this kind of thing is just a natural progression of what is already going on in all kinds of areas.
> The family did not know until the episode was broadcast that a camera was focusing on the closed door of the room where they had gathered and that audio of Dr. Schubl was being recorded.
That is got to be illegal, right..? If not that is super immoral.
These people have absolutely no conscience at all. The doctor should have their medical licence reviewed for serious ethical lapses.