> 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.
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.