When it comes to interviewing patients, should journalists get permission from the hospital's top brass first — even if the source has already agreed? This question was at the heart of a recent Press Complaints Commission (PCC) ruling in the U.K.
When it comes to interviewing patients, should journalists get permission from the hospital's top brass first — even if the source has already agreed? This question was at the heart of a recent Press Complaints Commission (PCC) ruling in the U.K.
Back in February, a patient's parents invited a journalist with the Essex Chronicle to interview their son — who had previously woken from a coma after a beating — in the hospital. The journalist did so, claiming he introduced himself to ward nurses, but not to any top executives at the hospital, or the communications team, as is required under the U.K.'s Editors' Code of Practice.
While the resulting story, "Victim of attacker 'lucky to be alive' after coma ordeal", received no complaints from the family or the subject, the CEO of the hospital filed an official complaint with the PCC. The hospital claimed the reporter did not identify himself to anybody, had no notebook, recorder, camera, or anything else that would signify his profession, and that the subject did not know he had spoken to a journalist.
The newspaper, and the reporter, denied the accusations, saying the journalist believed he did identify himself clearly, carried and used a notebook, and also believe he had his subject's consent.
[node:ad]
The PCC upheld the complaint against the newspaper, writing, in part:
"It is the responsibility of newspapers to demonstrate that they have abided by the terms of the Editors' Code. In the view of the Commission, the reporter could have acted to ensure that there was no uncertainty about his identification, and that the necessary permission had been obtained from a "responsible executive", before entering the unit where the patient was being treated. This could have been achieved, for example, by asking at reception at the beginning of the visit to speak to a relevant executive, or approaching the hospital in advance. Bearing in mind that the patient was in an especially vulnerable condition, the onus was on the reporter to ensure that he was open about his status with the hospital."
Regardless of whether you agree with the decision or not, it does raise some interesting questions, even for Canadian journalists: Should hospitals have any control over patient-journalist conversations if the source, or the source's family, has invited the journalist there? How far does the hospital's duty to protect vulnerable patients extend? What are the ethics of interviewing patients?
Feel free to chime in in the comment section below.
Should journalists get a hospital’s permission before interviewing patients?
When it comes to interviewing patients, should journalists get permission from the hospital's top brass first — even if the source has already agreed? This question was at the heart of a recent Press Complaints Commission (PCC) ruling in the U.K.
When it comes to interviewing patients, should journalists get permission from the hospital's top brass first — even if the source has already agreed? This question was at the heart of a recent Press Complaints Commission (PCC) ruling in the U.K.
Back in February, a patient's parents invited a journalist with the Essex Chronicle to interview their son — who had previously woken from a coma after a beating — in the hospital. The journalist did so, claiming he introduced himself to ward nurses, but not to any top executives at the hospital, or the communications team, as is required under the U.K.'s Editors' Code of Practice.
While the resulting story, "Victim of attacker 'lucky to be alive' after coma ordeal", received no complaints from the family or the subject, the CEO of the hospital filed an official complaint with the PCC. The hospital claimed the reporter did not identify himself to anybody, had no notebook, recorder, camera, or anything else that would signify his profession, and that the subject did not know he had spoken to a journalist.
The newspaper, and the reporter, denied the accusations, saying the journalist believed he did identify himself clearly, carried and used a notebook, and also believe he had his subject's consent.
The PCC upheld the complaint against the newspaper, writing, in part:
"It is the responsibility of newspapers to demonstrate that they have abided by the terms of the Editors' Code. In the view of the Commission, the reporter could have acted to ensure that there was no uncertainty about his identification, and that the necessary permission had been obtained from a "responsible executive", before entering the unit where the patient was being treated. This could have been achieved, for example, by asking at reception at the beginning of the visit to speak to a relevant executive, or approaching the hospital in advance. Bearing in mind that the patient was in an especially vulnerable condition, the onus was on the reporter to ensure that he was open about his status with the hospital."
Regardless of whether you agree with the decision or not, it does raise some interesting questions, even for Canadian journalists: Should hospitals have any control over patient-journalist conversations if the source, or the source's family, has invited the journalist there? How far does the hospital's duty to protect vulnerable patients extend? What are the ethics of interviewing patients?
Feel free to chime in in the comment section below.
Lauren McKeon
August 31, 2011
The media outlet should
The media outlet should inform the hospital prior to any interviews. The hospital has to protect the privacy of the patient. This will not happen if members of the media can approach patients directly. Patients are often under sedation and medicated and cannot give proper consent. Also, the patient’s family is often under stress and cannot deal with the media.
September 3, 2011
No. Journalists should not
No. Journalists should not require the hospital's permission before interviewing patients.
Journalists must be watchdogs of all public services including hospitals.
The last thing the public needs are stories vetted by the hospital's public relations or risk management (liability control) department. It doesn't serve the public to read, listen and watch hospital propaganda.
If journalists require the permission of hospital executives to interview patients, how will they be able to cover superbug outbreaks or hallway conditions or security breaches?
Patients and hospitals do not share the same perspective. Hospitals are most interested in ensuring that their facility is shown in a positive light. Patients are most concerned that they receive good care.
Patients with complaints about conditions in hospitals and other health care facilities must have as much of a right to access the press as anybody else. If patients experience unsafe hospital conditions, and their requests for help inside the hospital are unheeded, they currently only have two immediate options: call a lawyer or call a journalist.
Some patients and families may not want to risk calling a journalist, if that means alerting the hospital administration while the patient is still in care and before the interview has even taken place. Imagine a scenario where a patient calls the press with an allegation of abuse and the press asks the hospital for permission to interview the patient. What if the hospital says no? What could happen to that patient who dared to speak up once the media witness is denied?
If asking the hospital for permission to interview and shoot is not the answer to protecting patients and their privacy, what is?
1. Patients who are drugged or otherwise unable to consent should not be asked to go on the record, unless a substitute decision-maker grants that consent. Stories should be held until such time as consent can be verified.
2. Patients should be offered the opportunity to speak without attribution or to be blurred or silhouetted in video or photos, if what they reveal could compromise their safety or ability to heal. The impact of the published story on the subsequent care of the patient should also be considered.
3. To lift the burden of the allegation off the shoulders of the individual patient, information about systemic error gleaned from patients should be followed-up with expert interviews to provide context. As with all good journalism, facts should be verified in order to avoid defamation risk. Patients should be offered the opportunity to speak without naming their care team if needed.
4. Journalists can protect themselves from retroactive allegations of consent violations by getting release forms, in which the subject of the story is briefly described, signed by patients and their families.
5. If journalists want to shoot hospital conditions outside the patient's room or care area, they should get the consent of the other patients or blur or otherwise de-identify them to protect their privacy.
6. If journalists need visuals from around the hospital, they should ask hospitals to accommodate them without compromising patient safety. It is important that journalists not risk liability for putting patients at risk by slowing down any medical procedure or movement.
A Press Complaints Commission or other body should consider drafting a guideline for ethical patient interviews and media production inside hospitals and other health care facilities.
Journalists should have a body at which to complain if hospitals deny them access to shoot a story without a good enough reason.
Given the shrinkage of mainstream media and the growth of citizen journalism, it is important for hospitals not to deny access to journalists who are not with a larger news outlet.
Media have a role to play in improving patient safety and quality of care in hospitals by exposing system failures and informing the public about the risks they face in those facilities. We must do so while respecting patient privacy and ensuring we don't put their care at risk.
September 7, 2011
‘Tis more blessed to ask for
'Tis more blessed to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.