Bystanders with Cell phones and taking pictures

[ERDoc]

So I think we've gone far enough on the original topic so let's take this one step further.

Say you are the patient, You are the walking wounded and you are being photographed by someone. You have a couple of gashes on your head, you've been examined by the ems crew and you've signed a refusal. The guy is still snapping pictures of you. This is you personally. Not your patient. Not your family member. It's you. Do you have a issue with someone taking photographs of you in your moment of let's say weakness or less than say stellar moment? Do you have an issue with someone photographing you?

Do you allow it to happen or do you do something about it? Same rules go here. We have established that we have no right to privacy in public as set aside by the Supreme court.

What are your responses to the photographer?

Keep in mind AK's request about violence and how you would respond to this photographer. This is no longer on the job. The sky's the limit on your response.

I think he is making me feel threatened, I'm shooting him on the spot.

On a side note, I can see someone suing the EMS agency claiming that by allowing photographs to be taken, the EMS agency allowed HIPAA to be violated. Hey this is America and everyone wants their lottery ticket. If you can successfully sue for hot coffee and dying during a threesome that didn't involve your wife prior to your stress test, does it really seem that far fetched?

[Kiwiology]

Hey, that blokes threesome was his stress test

I remember one guy, the landlord found him dead on his bed, pants around his ankles with a dirty magazine in his hand, what a way to go

[systemet]

A few thoughts regarding these scenarios:

* The English language is particularly confusing and unhelpful in these discussions because we use the word "right" to refer to at least three completely separate concepts that are often given separate names in other languages. We can talk of "right" as in "correct", without it implying any more value judgment than that "1 + 1 = 2" is "right"; we can use it to describe the legal concept of a "right", something that is defined and enforecable by law, and it can also imply an ethical/moral judgment that a certain action is "right". I think a lot of the dissonance in this thread is because one poster is referring to what they feel is morally right, while another is referring to what is legally right. As several others have pointed out, this two ideas are not necessarily the same, nor does one necessarily imply the other.

* In the countries I've worked in, I'm not aware of any special privilege given to paramedics to allow them to confiscate property or to physically remove a bystander from a scene. This means that any action I take to remove someone from the scene against their will, or to take their property from them, constitutes theft or battery. This would likely give the person who I was battering, or trying to steal from, considerable legal right to defend themselves. Any action I performed to subsequently defend myself in these circumstances might well be interpreted in a law court as a continuing act in an assault / battery that I have initiated.

* Most legal systems don't afford an unconscious or severely injured patient a legal right to privacy in a public place, although they might protect against publication. However, in many countries there's a legal right to film activity occurring in a public place, providing the person doing the filming is not trespassing. So while we may be defending a perceived moral right of the patient to privacy, we are doing this while interfering with someone's legal right to film, or occupy a public space, and possibly while committing an act of theft, battery or assault.

* I think that the desire to protect the patient's dignity is admirable, but you can't know what the person filming is planning on doing with the footage. They may be planning on removing any footage that identifies the patient, or shows the nature of their injuries, or exposed body regions that are taboo in the local culture. They may not be intending to actually harm the patient's dignity at all.

* As a non-American, I would argue that having a legal right to film the police, in particular, is far more important to the defence of a democracy than any constitutional provision allowing the posession of firearms. I think we should be very careful about attacking these particular freedoms.

[HellsBells]

She's not hurt too badly but you and your crew have exposed her pretty fully.

Since this is where the thread starts, lets look at the situation created by this decision. An ambulance crew has taken an individual who is most likely scared and hurt from a car accident, then stripped her of her clothes, and dignity in a public place, where persumably numerous bystanders are looking on, some with cameras. Then, instead of concentrating on pt care the attendant becomes fixated on some member of the public at large with a camera, gets into a protracted standoff/battle with said individual.

I think we have an ethical duty to our pt not to create this type of situation in the first place. In my opinion, if a yahoo is standing by, filming the scene, we should simply do our level best to package the pt and get them into the ambulance, and out of the public eye quickly. To me, stripping a pt in public is farther beyond the pale, then a callow citizen filming an accident scene.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a linked in world, where nearly everyone carries a camera/camcorder on their person, and all can in effect be amatuer journalists, uploading pictures to their web blogs. In fact, its possible that some of these amatuer journalists could have already uploaded their pics to a twitter account, or their facebook page before youve smacked the phone out of their hand or ground it under your heel.

* As a non-American, I would argue that having a legal right to film the police, in particular, is far more important to the defence of a democracy than any constitutional provision allowing the posession of firearms. I think we should be very careful about attacking these particular freedoms.

Agreed, The police should have nothing to fear if they are conducting their duties lawfully in a public place.

[Happiness]

Ok, you are the third member of a crew that is taking care of a patient who is a victim of a MVA, She's not hurt too badly but you and your crew have exposed her pretty fully.

There's this bystander snapping pictures of you working the scene and also of this naked woman.

You've asked him to stop taking pictures. There is one officer on scene and you've asked him to deal with the bystander yet he refuses to do so.

How do you deal with this pesky bystander and his cell phone?

I had just this situation on one of my last EMS calls before I hung up my shingle.

So Im not going through all the posts but the one thing I am going to point out is that first of all, Why is the 3rd exposing a pt fully in public if they are pretty okay. That is the problem. If the medic had put the pt in the ambulance where it is private then there would be no reason for the bystander to take pics.

I have not had to deal with this ever so I dont know what I would do. I would try to ask politely and hope for the best Im not wasting time that should be spent on my pt.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Happiness

[Arctickat]

Why is the 3rd exposing a pt fully in public if they are pretty okay. That is the problem. If the medic had put the pt in the ambulance where it is private then there would be no reason for the bystander to take pics.

I have not had to deal with this ever so I dont know what I would do. I would try to ask politely and hope for the best Im not wasting time that should be spent on my pt.

Previously Asked here:

http://www.emtcity.c..._30#entry282033

Answered Here:

http://www.emtcity.c..._50#entry282137

Edited June 5, 2012 by Arctickat

[Happiness]

Thanks Artic

[Arctickat]

Thanks Artic

My Pleasure.

[chbare]

A few thoughts regarding these scenarios:

* The English language is particularly confusing and unhelpful in these discussions because we use the word "right" to refer to at least three completely separate concepts that are often given separate names in other languages. We can talk of "right" as in "correct", without it implying any more value judgment than that "1 + 1 = 2" is "right"; we can use it to describe the legal concept of a "right", something that is defined and enforecable by law, and it can also imply an ethical/moral judgment that a certain action is "right". I think a lot of the dissonance in this thread is because one poster is referring to what they feel is morally right, while another is referring to what is legally right. As several others have pointed out, this two ideas are not necessarily the same, nor does one necessarily imply the other.

* In the countries I've worked in, I'm not aware of any special privilege given to paramedics to allow them to confiscate property or to physically remove a bystander from a scene. This means that any action I take to remove someone from the scene against their will, or to take their property from them, constitutes theft or battery. This would likely give the person who I was battering, or trying to steal from, considerable legal right to defend themselves. Any action I performed to subsequently defend myself in these circumstances might well be interpreted in a law court as a continuing act in an assault / battery that I have initiated.

* Most legal systems don't afford an unconscious or severely injured patient a legal right to privacy in a public place, although they might protect against publication. However, in many countries there's a legal right to film activity occurring in a public place, providing the person doing the filming is not trespassing. So while we may be defending a perceived moral right of the patient to privacy, we are doing this while interfering with someone's legal right to film, or occupy a public space, and possibly while committing an act of theft, battery or assault.

* I think that the desire to protect the patient's dignity is admirable, but you can't know what the person filming is planning on doing with the footage. They may be planning on removing any footage that identifies the patient, or shows the nature of their injuries, or exposed body regions that are taboo in the local culture. They may not be intending to actually harm the patient's dignity at all.

* As a non-American, I would argue that having a legal right to film the police, in particular, is far more important to the defence of a democracy than any constitutional provision allowing the posession of firearms. I think we should be very careful about attacking these particular freedoms.

A remarkably lucid post considering the intense nature of some of the dialogue here.

[HellsBells]

From a Canadian perspective, this is not a particularly worrisome prospect. In fact I can't even remember any situations with an aggressive photographer or videographer. Is this a widespread problem in the US?