I’ve heard stories about inappropriate behavior of this type in colonoscopies.
As someone mentioned above, what you get (in the US, in general), is called “conscious sedation”. Which apparently doesn’t mean conscious as you or I know it. But it’s also not general anesthesia. One of the major effects (not side-effects, but intentional effects) of one of the medications is amnesia. So even if you are conscious and feel some pain, you won’t remember it, so… no memory, no foul, I guess. This effect can persist after the procedure is complete, which is why you don’t want to be signing any contracts or making any promises.
Not that it really makes any difference, I’m a bit skeptical of the guy’s claim that he set the recording on because he wanted to remember the discharge instructions. Mostly because I considered recording my own colonoscopy to see if I complained of pain at all during the procedure. You should get written discharge instructions, and they know you’re at risk for forgetting anything they tell you so they really shouldn’t be communicating any important information verbally to you.
I’d be interested to know whether anyone has made the case that this recording is not legal even in one-party states since arguably, if you’re unconscious, are you really a party?
I personally think they should automatically film any procedure where a patient is unconscious and the patient should be allowed to review it afterwords. Seems reasonable to me.
[quote=“Missy_Pants, post:16, topic:60385, full:true”]
Thats what I thought. Thanks.
Just checking that you were being rude for no real reason, ta.
[/quote]Not being rude. It’s pretty much the standard acronym in most corners of the internet to refer to whatever the linked article was.
That’s fair. It’s an inherently unsafe thing to do to someone, but statistically safe because we’re trained to predict, avoid and solve problems quickly and get lots of practise. I don’t, TBH, find it so hard any more, but I’ve been doing it half my life. But the problem with being statistically safe is that people forget the controlled poisoning aspect of it and assume it’s easy.
You’re potentially only a matter of minutes away from brain damage or death any time you’re given a substantial dose of sedative or anaesthetic drugs. It’s possible to be lucky, but preventing morbidity and mortality consistently requires physiological monitoring and competent, responsible supervision —something Michael Jackson found out the hard way when he let a less than competent Cardiologist loose with “our” drugs.
Ingham and Shah showed themselves to be less than responsible and were justifiably slapped for it.
[quote=“LDoBe, post:38, topic:60385, full:true”]
Personally, I like to think that I have a thick enough skin to deal with the kind of jokes and insults in the article.[/quote]
A thick skin really shouldn’t be necessary - anyone who is cashing the paycheck of a professional should be acting with corresponding professionalism.
(Of course, basic professionalism is a good thing regardless of whether a paycheck is involved, but it’s even more of a failing when you’re in a position of trust like this)
Yes, if you are unconscious, you are still a party.
Think of another sort of situation: An unconscious woman is murdered. The fact that she was unconscious does not mean that nothing was done to her. Legally, a crime was still committed.
Now, if an unconscious person is legally considered a “party” for something like a murder case, they cannot logically be considered “not a party” in a case such as this.
I don’t find that argument compelling in the least. Needless to say, that doesn’t mean it’s not a perfectly sound legal argument. However… You’re arguing that you’re still a person when you’re unconscious, with which I have no quarrel. But I’m not convinced that makes you a “party”. I’m sure it varies from state to state, but being a party to a conversation generally means you’re part of the conversation. So, for example, I suspect you are not free (in at least some one-party jurisdictions) to record the conversation of the people at the table next to you in a restaurant. You’re present. You’re a person. But you’re not a party to the conversation.
Two-party consent is about the authorization to record a conversation… That means you can’t record your phone conversation and use it in court if the other party did not consent. I don’t think anaesthetics have anything to do with this, do it?
I was confused. I assumed we were still talking about consent as in contracts and whether it’s okay to discharge someone who has just recovered from general anesthesia without requiring someone to pick them up and take them home.
I get the consent for recording two-party consent thing.
Seems like the repsonse of this hospital (in addition to firing everyone involved) should be to institute mandatory recording of all surgical procedures, and make that part of the patient’s record for their own review or that of other medical professionals. Yes, it’s come to that; we need body cameras for doctors, just like cops. Sad but true.
So, defamation law varies by state, and I have no idea what the specifics of defamation law are in Virginia. In many states, one of the earliest conceptions of common law defamation is still followed (or a close variation of it). In this version, publishing (false) statements to a third party (ie. telling them) that a third person has a sexually transmitted or other serious infectious disease is considered to be “defamation per se”.
For instance, if a client came to me in the state where I practice (California) with just a recording wherein someone was telling third parties that the client had STDs and tuberculosis, all other things being equal (for instance, the statements would have to be untrue for starters) under California law I would have very few qualms about bringing a defamation claim and being fairly sure it would succeed. If you added that other stuff (my god, his own doctor marking his medical chart up to indicate he had hemorrhoids?) it just becomes a no brainer.
I’m happy to chat more about defamation law (in a general/academic way suitable for a message board in which no legal advice is being dispensed) if anyone is interested.
So you’re basically saying that if someone says “oh I was saying that privately” that they can invalidate your whole recording even in a one party consent state? Your example of the table next to you at a restaurant isn’t even in the same plane of existence as a person in the room, who has volunteered to be there and trusted those in charge to act with professionalism, while physically being touched by the people talking, and being the subject of their words.
Also “unconscious” is a slippery word especially here. Was he black out unconscious? If not does the “amnesia” effects of the procedure effectively make him unconscious? You’d get a pretty hearty argument that people with amnesia have both agency and some form of (at least short term) memory… So calling a person in that state unconscious is disingenuous at best.
The insults wouldn’t really bother me as long as the doctors were doing their job. In this case, they really weren’t. But don’t you get a printed a sheet of instructions when discharged from hospital? That would make the recording unnecessary. I certainly have each time I’ve had an operation and I had bucket loads of info after my c section (most of which I didn’t read because I was too concerned about my daughter.
As an aside, I wonder if conscious sedation is the same as twilight anaesthetic.
Money spent on body cameras would be better put to use in other ways that would have a real patient safety benefit. Body cameras to ensure that someone doesn’t feel insulted or to apportion blame after an error makes less sense than paying for systems that reduce error.
I think it would also be meant to address sexual assault by surgeons/doctors which happens a non-zero amount of the time. (Not that doctors are all rapists obviously. But they are people in positions of power and that power is sometimes abused.)
Edit: I also think “body cameras” was a joke to highlight the police angle. As waetherman stated he was speaking about recordings “for the patients record” not public record…
