Bystanders with Cell phones and taking pictures

[BillKaneEMT]

I've been working a lot lately and between the job and continuing ed I just haven't been on the internet much. I just came across this thread and I have to say: This sort of debate is one of the reasons I love this place. I lean more toward Dwayne and Cap'n's side on this issue, at least temperamentally (never run into this in real life myself); but I can respect your perspective JP, particularly since you backed it up with real world court cases. If I ever find myself in this situation I'll do what I feel is right and deal with the consequences and now, thanks to this thread, I have a much better idea what those consequences would be. Hopefully I don't run into a case where I'm treating a patient and have to expose the patient in public without being able to sheet-shield or meat shield her/him.

akflightmedic said:

Did we forget we have an office on wheels? The one with two big rear doors? If I need to disrobe someone, I can put them in the truck and control their privacy issues way better than playing on the side of a road or in whatever public place you wish to insert here.

I can also sheet a patient and disrobe/cut their clothes under the sheet if that visual exam is so important it needs to be done right there on the spot. Baring of skin is very often site/body part specific, the full disrobings occur on those multiple system, unconscious trauma patients and again that can take place in the transport unit.

This has been my experience thus far, though I must point out that my experience is almost certainly the lowest in duration of anyone reading this thread. As I said, I'd rather not open myself up to legal consequences if I can possibly avoid it. I'l still make the call on the scene though, and thanks to this fascinating debate I have a better idea of the possible outcomes. Take care all.

[A Pox On This Place]

JP, I apologize. This is a topic that makes me so damn pissy it brings up some very unpleasant experiences. I've worked a lot at our local Occupy rallies and twice had to ask coppers to move aggressive picture takers back. One was an elderly woman who'd taken a tumble on some steps at one rally. She had some superficial lacs and some minor abrasions but didn't appear to have anything serious going on. A FF was still holding C-spines because we were'nt finished doing a head to toe and an Occupy member with a boxtop press credential around her neck was leaning in and trying to interview her. I got the attention of an MPD officer who moved her along in a ham-handed way I rather enjoyed.

What's a reporter these days? When I was one you worked for a network, a broadcast station, a paper or a wire service. Your credentials identified you as press, which got you some non-public access (at times) and admission to press conferences. (The best part was free swag, booze and meals.) Now, anyone with a blog, a laptop and a camera can choose to style themselves as press. Technology has made this a murky distinction. What bugs me about the anything-in-public-is-fair-game school of thought is there's no real ethic involved. I think recording someone's prehospital care in a public place is a wrong and tawdry activity, and I struggle to see its newsworthiness.

I get very bent out of shape that not only do citizen reporters seem to lack ethics is their belief the First Amendment is an absolute, fixed thing. It's so not. If an ER visitor starts walking around snapping pictures they're gonna get their butt arrested. Doesn't someone in a prehospital setting out in the

community have the same right to privacy and personal dignity as an ER patient?

OK, that's my rant. I'll sit back and listen to cooler heads.

Edited June 3, 2012 by A Pox On This Place

[ERDoc]

Pox, you bring up an interesting point. It has been argued that PD/FF and possibly EMS are governement employees and therefore photography is allowed. How about in the ER of a state or county hospital? In my residency I was at a state hospital on state land and was a state employee. Does that give someone the right to come in and photograph me? The only difference between me and the crew in the field is the fact that I have a roof over my head.

[A Pox On This Place]

I honestly don't know, Doc. Are there any lawyers out there? I'm a public sector employee and can pretty much be recorded whenever, wherever. I think the legal concept of patient confidentiality is so strong it likely trumps some traditional First Amendment activities but I have no idea where the line is.

[JPINFV]

Pox, you bring up an interesting point. It has been argued that PD/FF and possibly EMS are governement employees and therefore photography is allowed. How about in the ER of a state or county hospital? In my residency I was at a state hospital on state land and was a state employee. Does that give someone the right to come in and photograph me? The only difference between me and the crew in the field is the fact that I have a roof over my head.

"Public property" and "state property" isn't the same thing. Try walking through the governor's house or the back rooms of the local court house and see how far you can get. The difference between having that roof and not having that roof is a pretty big difference.

It's like the difference between an unfenced yard and a fenced yard. In general, it's not trespassing for people to be in an unfencsed, unsigned yard until told to leave. A fenced or signed yard, on the other hand, makes their mere presence trespassing.

The big difference is that everyone has a right to be on public lands like a city street.

Edited June 3, 2012 by JPINFV

[Just Plain Ruff]

I agree JP. Let's take the fenced yard example.

My grandparents before their deaths lived behind a school playground. Their backyard at one time was unfenced. When adults came to play baseball or softball they would sometimes hit the ball over into my grandparents yard. Without the fence they would just walk into the yard and get the ball. NO harm no foul to my grandparents. Made no difference to the family until a couple of people trampled my grandparents prized strawberries and garden.

We then put up a fence. Softballs and baseballs would still come into the yard but attitudes and courtesies immediately changed. The players would make trips around the block and knock on my grandparents door and tell them their ball was in the yard. My grandfather would walk them to the ball and then let them out the back gate. Or if he was in the backyard would let them retrieve their ball.

Amazing what a fence would do.

Just an anecdote. Adds nothing to this discussion except fodder to JP's last post.

[DwayneEMTP]

...Yes it sucks, yes it would suck if it were my family, but at the end of the day (since Dwayne always likes to personalize it and emotionalize it)...they have violated no laws and not restricted their care...

See, this is where you and I split the sheets...

I seem to remember a time where you were interested in exploring psychological/philosophical ideas. But that time has passed. Now you're only interested, as in this case, in participating if you have a pat and obviously right answer to a question.

I have almost no interest in exploring issues to which I already have a good, or politically correct answer. That is why I go worst case scenario on these topics to try and avoid the easy, "Just cut their clothes off under the sheet." answers. There's nothing new there, I've learned nothing by approaching any question or subject in that way.

And I think that personalizing these issues is very appropriate. I would think that that would be obvious as this is certainly 'personal' to someone else. You're comfortable with the, "yeah, well, it's not my problem, so, sucks to be them if there are no laws protecting them." and I'm not...just two sides of...well...maybe not even the same fence.

I'm very interested in people's thoughts on these ridiculous scenarios and have used the logic that I've developed here many times in the field. What were they thinking? Why did they make the decisions that they made? Where does their emotion stop/start. Is there a place for logic and motion to support each other and how well do they/can they work together?

I'm not sure where I've emotionalized it, though if you're speaking historically I won't even attempt to deny it. Was I emotional when I punched the shithead a bunch of times in the face? I don't think so, not really. I was pretty wound up, but more than that I was stopping something that I felt needed to be stopped. If you say that you would allow a man to follow your wife and speak to her like that and simply leave the bar, be forced out by that type of behavior, then that's ok. I get that. It's just simply not something that I'll allow to happen if I believe that I have the power to stop it.

I miss the old ak that had the ability to participate in conversations even when he didn't know before hand that he had the popular and 'correct' answer. The one that liked to challenge people instead of simply dropping in long enough to explain how their discussion is stupid as the answers are obvious and simple.

I get that these discussions don't interest you any more, but they do interest me, as they did a lot of other people that have proved themselves pretty intelligent over time. I'm glad that this could never possibly ever happen to you. That's not what the thread was ultimately about...

As to your other points, I think that I made myself pretty clear previously.

Dwayne

[JPINFV]

Amazing what a fence would do.

Just an anecdote. Adds nothing to this discussion except fodder to JP's last post.

You can also consider the fence to be the perimeter line on a scene.

Since it's rather germane to the discussion of strikeing photographers, Detriot is getting a new fire commishioner after he cursed at and slapped a microphone out of a reporter's hands who was trying to ask him questions about the lack of maintnance in Detroit's fire stations.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7355386

The confrontation is at 55 seconds.

[akflightmedic]

I gave my opinion as everyone else has, nothing to do with being the "popular or correct choice"...in this case this is how I feel and that is what I did. I do not understand the confusion on your part. There is nothing to explore because even in your worst case scenario, my feelings or management of the topic does not change...as I stated.

You could make it my daughters, my grandmother, my dog...nothing you say changes my interpretation of how I perceive or manage the event. It is a shame you think my honest opinion is not good enough and feel I should explore some wild tangent (which I did when you threw in the caveats)...but even then it didn't change.

Please note where I indicated the discussion was stupid. If I thought that, I would not even waste a second of my limited time responding in the first place.

Is there some guideline I have not been issued on how to respond with my opinion to these hypothetical scenarios?

Edit:

***And actually Dwayne, me discussing the Castle Doctrine was an attempt at exploring outside the "correct answer". How far do you (the EMS worker) take this camera issue...especially those of you who advocate violence? In Florida, I can legally shoot anyone/anywhere IF I feel my life is threatened. So with that in mind, how far are you willing to go to protect patient privacy?

[DwayneEMTP]

No Brother...You're good.

Thanks for participating...