The story has hit national media – that surgeon’s career is in serious jeopardy. However, TBTAM wonders if the anonymous whistleblower made the more egregious error:
In fact, I’d argue that the “whistle blower” to the media committed an even bigger violation of the patient’s rights than did the resident who snapped the photo. What could have been a private matter between the patient and the Mayo Clinic (and the lawyers for both sides) has now become national news.
Related posts:
- Do resident work-hour restrictions increase surgical complications?
- Resident work hour restrictions: Increasing surgical complications?
- A surgical resident on the hook for a $23 million malpractice award
- Circumcision and the rights of baby boys
- The Mayo Clinic opposes a public plan, and the dissonance facing progressive health reformers
- Should hospitals use Twitter to follow patients?
- The steep price of restricting resident work-hours
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 12 comments }
The photo of the tattoo may not have been necessary or appropriate, but the patient probably gave written consent for taking it anyway. Taking photos of oddities at surgery is not unusual, as long as those photographs are treated with the same confidentiality as other matters that are part of a medical record.
Calling the press is unacceptable on any terms, all the more so since that clearly was a breach of patient privilege and done most likely to gore the surgeon’s ox rather than to protect the patients (which the caller will no doubt try to pretend was the purpose for her action, and speculating about the “power” disparity at the hospital is absolutely no excuse at all for that breach.)
It is laughable on its face when you consider the patient was a 27-year-old owner of a strip club. Do you suppose the tattoo was a secret? Doubtful. If no one at his “office” knew of it, certainly the artist who made the tattoo was under no obligation to keep his work a secret. After all, a tattoo is a form of signage, there for anyone to see who has a view. The pretense of “anger” is just ridiculous.
True,
While the shutterbug is guilty of poor judgment, there was doubtful any breach of federal law (HIPAA) involved in making a photo that was not distributed.
The whistle blower had every right and responsibility to go through prescribed channels within the hospital, and as a witness to ‘medical error’ had a responsibility to the patient to ensure that the patient was notified. But if the whistleblower identified the patient, his health information, or even disclosed unique personal identifiers (and this tatoo likely is sufficiently unique) then he is quite guilty of HIPAA federal law.
>>”It is laughable on its face when you consider the patient was a 27-year-old owner of a strip club. Do you suppose the tattoo was a secret?”
Anon, if a woman is raped, the fact that she was the town slut doesn’t lessen the crime in the eyes of the law. Isn’t there some saying that justice is blind.
Leuchter, you are confusing a photograph with an assault. Seems like a departure from logic, and they aren’t the same.
If the patient gave general permission for photographs, as is usually part of an admission consent at most teaching hospitals, taking the photo was not wrongful as long as its use was confined to the educational purposes usually outlined in the consent. So not “rape.” Not anything like that.
Your shrill attempt to muddy the discussion with your gibberish about town pumps misses the point: was his tattoo a secret or not? If not, then knowledge about it doesn’t seem like much of a breach of privacy.
Stick to the facts. Stirring it up with unrelated stock talking points on women’s rights and rape makes you seem unable to keep on point. So try a little harder.
And yes, the claims are laughable.
Too bad you fail to see the humor of it.
Come to think of it, I am wondering whether I ought to photograph particularly odd or poorly-done tattoos just to document the patient’s appearance at the time of surgeries. Sooner or later, someone will be blaming the surgeon for altering or damaging their bad-taste body art at surgery. Don’t want that.
Anon, my example was not to equate the severity of the offense, but to point out that the reputation of the “victim” has no bearing in law.
btw, you are one prickly guy, lighten up.
The tattoo read \”HOT ROD\” in a cold operating room.
After the strippers give him a lap dance, it reads \”HAVE A GREAT OLD TIME IN RHODE ISLAND\”.
“If the patient gave general permission for photographs, as is usually part of an admission consent at most teaching hospitals, taking the photo was not wrongful as long as its use was confined to the educational purposes usually outlined in the consent.”
Couple of things are wrong with this.
Last time I had surgery, the photo consent was included as a part of the informed consent, which one has to sign before the doctor will do the surgery. In effect, you either agree to be photographed or you don’t get the surgery. They should be separated.
Second, if any photographs are taken, they should be resticted to having relevance to the procedure at hand. If I sign the photo consent before having wisdom teeth removed, I shouldn’t have to worry that the oral surgeon might decide to take a snapshot of my crotch. My consent was for oral surgery, not for you to go exploring wherever the heck you please.
Written consent in a hospital/clinic setting is garbage. Those forms are rushed past, the doctors rarely bother to explain, and if you do get an opportunity to actually read the form, you find it written in such purposefully unintelligible gibberish that the doctor’s risk management attorneys could probably argue that you’ve given permission to have just about anything done to you.
And to point fingers at someone who has the courage to blow the whistle…incredible.
Looks like the surgery resident got fired:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2007-sct/4392.html
From his listing on the Arizona Medical Board site, it looks like he was probably a senior resident. What a waste.
There are X-rays of various foreign objects people have stuck in their rectum, requiring surgical removal. Surely you’ve seen them. There’s no patient identifier. Is that a violation? The tattooed penis likely was not identifiable to an individual. As far as I know, the picture was erased, no evidence remains. We do consent to being photographed when we enter surgery. We often photograph parts not directly related to the surgery for education. Nail polish, various body jewelry, we sometimes photograph to remind us to look out for that sort of thing when prepping a patient for surgery.
He was a Chief Resident, just a few months shy of finishing.
be careful of what you read on the internet
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=29&art_id=nw20071221013004574C795223
Adam Hansen, chief of general surgery at the Nobel Prize-winning Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale …
Anon 07:19:
1: “Written consent in a hospital/clinic setting is garbage. Those forms are rushed past, the doctors rarely bother to explain, and if you do get an opportunity to actually read the form, you find..”
Be proactive in your own medical care anon not a whiner. If you don’t understand something say so. If you feel like you are being rushed say so. If you want to read the consent and hold on the surgery say so ( I personally consent on the last visit BEFORE the surgery for these very reasons). As far the legalist way these fopmrs are written. Don’t blame the doctor on that one, a lawyer was involved in the form.
2:”And to point fingers at someone who has the courage to blow the whistle…incredible.”
Do you have any idea what whistle blower protection is? If the OR person went through proper channels they would have complete protection. This is federal. The surgery happened December 11th. Don’t anybody give me this crap about how that person had gone through proper channels and got the cold shoulder. This person had a vendetta (for whatever reason) and went to the papers as an anon. This person doesn’t have courage they are a coward and certainly should be fired.
Penises sure do cause a lot of trouble. In an era of test-tube and petri dish babies, perhaps this somewhat vestigial organ will shrink away via evolutionary pressures. I think an “eye-for-an-eye” might have best fit the crime here. Perhaps the surgical resident could have had a tattoo performed on his private such as “shortcoming” rather than have a career and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars wasted.
Comments on this entry are closed.