You're browsing the web one day and come across some videos that expose girls private parts when they're on the exam table. How do you figure they got there.
The patients were denied the right to medical care unless they agreed to be exposed in public
We reserve the right to publish videos of you on the exam table for educational purposes†was hidden so deep into the fine print that some patients signed it in a hurry with tired eyes and thought they were seeing things
The patients were re-compensated for the loss of their medical privacy so they never had to work again
They put the patients on video without their knowledge and snuck it on YouTube and no one has reported it yet
HIPAA makes an allowance for practitioners who film their patients for public education
All the above
None of the above
How in the name of God did they get these people to agree to be filmed during their medical exams?
They show the girls' faces so you might recognize them and show close-up pictures of their private parts to display on YouTube?
All I had to do was sign into my account and tell them I'm eighteen or older to access these videos.
They show graphic pictures that I didn't really need to see. In one of them, the man doing the lady partsl exam actually addresses the patient by Ms……..†followed by her last name which really gave me the creeps.
Some but not all these videos had drawings of girls private parts which is all they really need to educate the anyone including nurses and medical students.
Any creepy eight-year-old can create a YouTube account and pretend they're eighteen or older. Any peeping tom can gain access to these pictures that show the private parts of girls in their practitioners offices and if you ever knew any sex predators, this whole idea would creep you out.
The girls exposed on the exam table never show the viewers that they know they're being filmed outside of one patient who smiles and holds a flower and who only has her face exposed to the camera.
When I was in training and we used patients for educational purposes it meant we were all inside of a shut curtain or closed up room protecting the patient's dignity.
In my general goings about I meet up with people who have no clue about a patient's right to privacy.
They seem to think it's ludicrous when you ask them to mind their own business.
They seem to think it's their own decision whether they invade someone's privacy depending on whether THEY are okay with it and sometimes depending on whether they sacrificed their own privacy and sometimes because of their own self-importance.
One person even told me, Well you have to talk about it,†when I refused to talk about my patients during a gathering. In this case, they expected me to think I was the poor little victim that has to talk about it.â€
The publics' ignorance and insensitivity are only being made worse by the availability of publicized pap smears. They make no mention of the fact that these patients are vulnerable.
They do not explain to their vast audience how the right to privacy and dignity are tied in with videos of patients' exams.
Maybe someone could clear up my confusion as far as how a medical office can reserve the right to go public with the care of their patients and include identifying information like the patients faces. I know there has to be some detailed process these people follow before they publish a video.
I would like to think the patients watch the videos first and then give their permission for them to be published.
I would like to think HIPAA requires the permission form for these pictures to be published to be separate from all other forms.
I do hope the entitlement of these practitioners to publish these videos is not because of some statement buried somewhere in a legal agreement that someone signs when they desperately need care.
I do hope You can't share pictures of me†is still an option when they expose someone's private parts on YouTube.
I am going to answer this question that the OP brought up:
These pics may be realistic or fetish Media (as someone already mentioned), they may be obtained by the freedom of the press (1st US Amendment), they may be obtained from other countries (legally or illegally), they may be obtained through some illegal means, they may have been obtained with permission for teaching purposes, or they may have been posted by the patient.
Then there is the requirement to video procedures: Rhode Island Hospital Fined for Fifth Surgery Error in Two Years. (By order of the state,) the hospital must also install video cameras in all of its operating rooms and all surgeries will have to be watched by a clinical professional trained in surgical safety measures.
Just as some U.S. hospitals use offshore radiology, Rhode Island Hospital or other hospitals that use video, may be using overseas companies to review and store the video. How safe do you think it is in India, China, or Russia? In this article: Sexual Abuse by Physicians: More common than we think, there are images from a CCTV system that caught a physician assaulting a patient.
In the US, CCTV (either from a personal residence or healthcare setting), when used in criminal or civil court proceedings becomes a part of the public record and is accessible to anyone (there is a formal request process. Consider the article; Doctor note to self: Next time I molest a kid, I'll remember to turn off the security camera. A Ohio doctor was caught in his hole molesting a 15 year old boy. The evidence is now part of the public record.
Some U.S. hospitals are outsourcing work overseas. When a patient in Altoona, Pa., needs an emergency brain scan in the middle of the night, a doctor in Bangalore, India, is asked to interpret the results. They claim shortages of radiologists, but it is the money driving it. Offshore radiology could like the nightmarish vision of seedy sweatshops stealing U.S. jobs and replacing them with unqualified cheap labor. Who is to say that those images are not sold or stolen.
Then there are online learning resources. University of California has excellent resources. Youtube even has good training videos. These may also be available as part of medical studies and the complete research may be available through the instutions that the research was conducted or through "inter library loans."
One example is the clinical research conducted by New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center of Cornell University (WCMC), under the direction of Dr. Dix P. Poppas. They are the questionable follow-up tests used by Dr. Poppas for assessing clitoral sensitivity in the young girls who received nerve sparing ventral clitoroplasty†operations under his care. In a published paper, Dr. Poppas reports employing an unorthodox technique of applying medical vibratory devices to the genitals of girls and young women ages 5 to 24 years old to collect data on post-operative clitoral sensitivity. (Source: The Cornell Daily Sun)
Dr. George Reardon practiced at St. Francis for three decades. Police believe he abused hundreds, possibly thousands, of children under the guise of a bogus growth study. The abuse was uncovered in 2007 when the owner of Reardon's former home in West Hartford cracked open a wall during a renovation project and found thousands of videos and slides showing children in various sexual acts and positions.
Police have identified 250 victims by name, but hundreds of other children in the Mediaographic images never came forward. Investigators believe Reardon victimized at least 500 children, but they also believe the number of victims could be in the thousands.
The abuse began in the 1950s, when Reardon was a young doctor in Albany, N.Y., and continued in Connecticut through the 1980s, authorities say. He resigned in 1993 amid molestation accusations, but he was never charged. In 1995, he was prohibited from practicing medicine in Connecticut or any other state. Source: CBS News
Along with Google Glass, cell phones also can snap pics of patients. See: Nurses Fired Over Cell Phone Photos Of Patient. Now there are apps like docbookMD and Figure 1, that let providers take (supposedly) HIPAA compliant and (supposedly) secure images.
There are also all the surgical "scopes" used for endoscopic procedures. They may record the patient's face and body before insertion.
If this was stuff you "didn't need to see," why did you keep watching?
Have you ever heard of "human curiosity?"
Just as in cats and other animals, curiosity is beneficial. It allows cats and others to find a meal or a warm place to sleep. It helped ancient man venture out of the Fertile Crescent.
It is also why people "look" at accident scenes and why reality shows are so popular. (I am not sure that the latter is progress or evolution...)
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
Have you ever heard of "human curiosity?"
Just as in cats and other animals, curiosity is beneficial. It allows cats and others to find a meal or a warm place to sleep. It helped ancient man venture out of the Fertile Crescent.
It is also why people "look" at accident scenes and why reality shows are so popular. (I am not sure that the latter is progress or evolution...)
If she was curious, then why was she complaining? At one point even called herself a "victim"?
I am going to answer this question that the OP brought up:
These pics may be realistic or fetish Media (as someone already mentioned), they may be obtained by the freedom of the press (1st US Amendment), they may be obtained from other countries (legally or illegally), they may be obtained through some illegal means, they may have been obtained with permission for teaching purposes, or they may have been posted by the patient.
Then there is the requirement to video procedures: Rhode Island Hospital Fined for Fifth Surgery Error in Two Years. (By order of the state,) the hospital must also install video cameras in all of its operating rooms and all surgeries will have to be watched by a clinical professional trained in surgical safety measures.
Just as some U.S. hospitals use offshore radiology, Rhode Island Hospital or other hospitals that use video, may be using overseas companies to review and store the video. How safe do you think it is in India, China, or Russia? In this article: Sexual Abuse by Physicians: More common than we think, there are images from a CCTV system that caught a physician assaulting a patient.
In the US, CCTV (either from a personal residence or healthcare setting), when used in criminal or civil court proceedings becomes a part of the public record and is accessible to anyone (there is a formal request process. Consider the article; Doctor note to self: Next time I molest a kid, I'll remember to turn off the security camera. A Ohio doctor was caught in his hole molesting a 15 year old boy. The evidence is now part of the public record.
Some U.S. hospitals are outsourcing work overseas. When a patient in Altoona, Pa., needs an emergency brain scan in the middle of the night, a doctor in Bangalore, India, is asked to interpret the results. They claim shortages of radiologists, but it is the money driving it. Offshore radiology could like the nightmarish vision of seedy sweatshops stealing U.S. jobs and replacing them with unqualified cheap labor. Who is to say that those images are not sold or stolen.
Then there are online learning resources. University of California has excellent resources. Youtube even has good training videos. These may also be available as part of medical studies and the complete research may be available through the instutions that the research was conducted or through "inter library loans."
One example is the clinical research conducted by New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center of Cornell University (WCMC), under the direction of Dr. Dix P. Poppas. They are the questionable follow-up tests used by Dr. Poppas for assessing clitoral sensitivity in the young girls who received nerve sparing ventral clitoroplasty†operations under his care. In a published paper, Dr. Poppas reports employing an unorthodox technique of applying medical vibratory devices to the genitals of girls and young women ages 5 to 24 years old to collect data on post-operative clitoral sensitivity. (Source: The Cornell Daily Sun)
Along with Google Glass, cell phones also can snap pics of patients. See: Nurses Fired Over Cell Phone Photos Of Patient. Now there are apps like docbookMD and Figure 1, that let providers take (supposedly) HIPAA compliant and (supposedly) secure images.
There are also all the surgical "scopes" used for endoscopic procedures. They may record the patient's face and body before insertion.
Thank you banterings for getting my thread back on track. This is exactly the kind of information I was hoping to find. I see that your post has been here for several days with zero likes so I guess people don't LIKE being educated.
Here is another thing. Some posters asked "why did you keep watching," and portrayed me and were insinuating that I was watching these videos for the wrong reasons. If I was just watching them out of "curiosity" I would not even think about sharing this on the web. I had to watch them in their entirety before I could start a thread and talk about them from an informed point of view. I started the thread to find out how privacy law or HIPAA ties in with them.
At no time did I state that I was a "victim." For anyone who did not understand me before, I would not even think about violating the privacy and dignity of my patients so it irritates me when I'm expected to do this (which I tried to point out before) What I think people might be doing is skimming these posts so the meaning is lost.
As far as HIPAA, "What penalties apply to violations of privacy rule requirements ? ... Criminal penalties (up to a $250,000 fine and ten years in prison) may be imposed," the insurance part is only one part of it as one can see from studying it.
If she was curious, then why was she complaining? At one point even called herself a "victim"?
I don't buy it in this case.
OCNRN I did not call myself a victim. I did say that people who disclose information sometimes portray themselves as victims. Do you think if these were my patients in those web videos that I would even think about posting them for public viewing?
...Here is another thing. Some posters asked "why did you keep watching," and portrayed me and were insinuating that I was watching these videos for the wrong reasons. If I was just watching them out of "curiosity" I would not even think about sharing this on the web. I had to watch them in their entirety before I could start a thread and talk about them from an informed point of view. I started the thread to find out how privacy law or HIPAA ties in with them.
...As far as HIPAA, "What penalties apply to violations of privacy rule requirements ? ... Criminal penalties (up to a $250,000 fine and ten years in prison) may be imposed," the insurance part is only one part of it as one can see from studying it.
There is nothing wrong with curiosity; curiosity leads to learning.
As to your question, (AND this is NOT directed ant ANY PERSON OR ANR POST HERE) there are NO stupid questions, only stupid answers.
As far as HIPAA, it is total cr@p, the legislation is not worth the paper it is written on. It only makes it easier for government, law enforcement, insurance companies, and business partners to get access to protected health information and harder for everyone else...
Thank you for recognizing the validity of my answer.
You are making the assumption that these are patients. If they are "reality Media" videos, then these are likely paid actors.
Just recently, I watched a surgery on YouTube. It might be like one poster said, that the patient posted it themselves. I did not know who filmed them while under anesthesia. In any case, I don't think a paid actor would be getting real surgery where they're cut open. In this case, I was hoping the patients get re-imbursed for their willingness to share their experience with the public and hope things like this are not illegally posted.
"Girl" is a female child. As a mature woman, I find it a little creepy when women are referred to as "girls".
Since the advent of video tape, and now digital imaging, "Filming" is largely a thing of the past. "Recording" is a more accurate and proper term for capturing visual images.
The fact that the OP uses these terms tells me that he is most likely a male who is at least 45 years old, likely older.
OP, there is a subculture of adult Media that is specific to "medical play". Whatever. What people do with other consenting adults is their business. And I absolutely support the right of consenting adults to do whatever it is they want to do.
However, with that being said, I am assuming that you are perhaps going through an NP course of study? Which, as part of such clinicals one has to do some internals/paps? And yes, often times an NP student will look something up on you tube to have a sense of what they are doing prior to getting all up in a patient's business in person.
But know that a majority of the "you must be 18" videos are Media. A subculture. And that is ok, whatever floats your boat, however, I would not use these videos to set up for clinicals. Because who the heck really knows if you have not been exposed to an actual internal/pap exam if what they are showing you is correct procedure or not. So I would err on the side of caution and believe most of this is Media, and that most are Media actors, and not meant for clinical review.
I would be more apt to shadow an NP and see firsthand how it is done so that when it comes time for you to complete an exam you are comfortable with the process.
There are people who believe that the Media industry is victimizing to women. (and I really think that the intent here would be medical sex play, therefore, not a patient privacy/HIPAA issue) And I get that. However, we have really no way of distinguishing the intent of the actors or the producers other than monetary. And the saying the "full name" on the video? Methinks that to put a search engine look at said name would bring you to the actor's personal web page, that one could access for $5 a minute or some other such thing.
Just don't use the information that you saw as the correct way to clinically complete a pelvic exam. Otherwise, live and let live.
And just a little blurb on patient privacy. I hear you OP loud and clear. It sends me over the edge when patient's state "I do not want anyone to know I am here" and the next thing you know the person answering the phone is confirming that not only are they a patient, but "they don't want to talk to anyone". Or people going OFF about "I need to see the patient!! It is my RIGHT!! I am married to them/take care of them/am their oldest friend!!"
Ah, yes, and the infamous "getting spoken to" when you answer "I can not confirm nor deny that we have a patient by that name." And then the phone call is made to a manager who then guesses intent (WELL, they ARE family/caregiver/close friend) and tears a nurse up for being an "extremist".
I don't ever try to guess someone's intent. Like spitting in the wind. But if a patient is not wanting anyone to have their information, that they are in the facility.....their business--it is my business to comply with that.
The internet is so hard to control. Once it is out there it is out there. Hence why so many people are using it as a tool to backround/personality or other check. And don't get me started on the patients who want full "Jane Doe" or "John Doe" status, only to post cryptic pics/leading statements of themselves on social media.....puts nurses in a bind--
There as just as many students who willingly go into the vid business (regardless of intent--ie: I only get playboy for the articles) only to have it come back and bite ya. Most savvy young adults know this. Does it make the red solo cups disappear out of the hands of 19 year olds? Not necessarily. But it is an improper use of victimhood when the only time one's side job is any sort of an issue is when it is discovered and used against them. (and for all of the young, impressionable nursing students out there--just say no--once you sign a consent form, ruthless and not so ruthless others can use your artistic endevour for anything they would like to...which could affect your future!!)
Words to work by--"This is my Vegas. What happens here stays here. What you choose to share about yourself is not my concern, however, I do not share well with others, so it shall not be from my mouth".
"Girl" is a female child. As a mature woman, I find it a little creepy when women are referred to as "girls".
Since the advent of video tape, and now digital imaging, "Filming" is largely a thing of the past. "Recording" is a more accurate and proper term for capturing visual images.
The fact that the OP uses these terms tells me that he is most likely a male who is at least 45 years old, likely older.
Thank you. Carry on.
Guess I'll get a little nit-picky back
You are most probably correct regarding the age category, but not for one of the reasons you think. And it's mostly because of your assumption that the OP is male that I'm responding.
FWIW, I know a good many women, who have LONG since past girlhood, who refer to themselves, cohorts, colleagues, friends as "girls". As in "the girls in the office" (when not one of them is under 50 years of age). "The girls went out last night"/"Girls Night Out" referencing a group of women who socialized.
banterings
278 Posts
I am going to answer this question that the OP brought up:
These pics may be realistic or fetish Media (as someone already mentioned), they may be obtained by the freedom of the press (1st US Amendment), they may be obtained from other countries (legally or illegally), they may be obtained through some illegal means, they may have been obtained with permission for teaching purposes, or they may have been posted by the patient.
I know that most of you are going to question freedom of the press (1st Amendment to the US Constitution). Read here: "Hospital reality show falls within 'news' definition" and "How Far Is Too Far? Reality Show Airs Patient's Death Without Family's Permission."
Then there is the requirement to video procedures: Rhode Island Hospital Fined for Fifth Surgery Error in Two Years. (By order of the state,) the hospital must also install video cameras in all of its operating rooms and all surgeries will have to be watched by a clinical professional trained in surgical safety measures.
Just as some U.S. hospitals use offshore radiology, Rhode Island Hospital or other hospitals that use video, may be using overseas companies to review and store the video. How safe do you think it is in India, China, or Russia? In this article: Sexual Abuse by Physicians: More common than we think, there are images from a CCTV system that caught a physician assaulting a patient.
In the US, CCTV (either from a personal residence or healthcare setting), when used in criminal or civil court proceedings becomes a part of the public record and is accessible to anyone (there is a formal request process. Consider the article; Doctor note to self: Next time I molest a kid, I'll remember to turn off the security camera. A Ohio doctor was caught in his hole molesting a 15 year old boy. The evidence is now part of the public record.
Some U.S. hospitals are outsourcing work overseas. When a patient in Altoona, Pa., needs an emergency brain scan in the middle of the night, a doctor in Bangalore, India, is asked to interpret the results. They claim shortages of radiologists, but it is the money driving it. Offshore radiology could like the nightmarish vision of seedy sweatshops stealing U.S. jobs and replacing them with unqualified cheap labor. Who is to say that those images are not sold or stolen.
Then there are online learning resources. University of California has excellent resources. Youtube even has good training videos. These may also be available as part of medical studies and the complete research may be available through the instutions that the research was conducted or through "inter library loans."
One example is the clinical research conducted by New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center of Cornell University (WCMC), under the direction of Dr. Dix P. Poppas. They are the questionable follow-up tests used by Dr. Poppas for assessing clitoral sensitivity in the young girls who received nerve sparing ventral clitoroplasty†operations under his care. In a published paper, Dr. Poppas reports employing an unorthodox technique of applying medical vibratory devices to the genitals of girls and young women ages 5 to 24 years old to collect data on post-operative clitoral sensitivity. (Source: The Cornell Daily Sun)
Here is an article about patient dignity and video recording patients. It addresses such things as Google Glass and criminal behavior in healthcare. Johns Hopkins gynecologist Nikita A. Levy was found to have over 1200 video clips and images depicting patients in states of undress taken in secret with a pen camera. This may seem criminal, but charges were never filed not because of his death, but because most states have exclusions for pictures taken by doctors when (supposedly) used for research.
Along with Google Glass, cell phones also can snap pics of patients. See: Nurses Fired Over Cell Phone Photos Of Patient. Now there are apps like docbookMD and Figure 1, that let providers take (supposedly) HIPAA compliant and (supposedly) secure images.
There are also all the surgical "scopes" used for endoscopic procedures. They may record the patient's face and body before insertion.