But that would either mean today's video is Day 3 or Day 8, and we know it's not Day 3, and she would be much more mobile by Day 8.The noise from the strike outside must be awful for people really poorly.
I still think the op was on the 12th- strike action took place on the 15th and the 20th December.
Probably ran out of lip balm.The whole thing is so wrong, so distasteful, but SOOOO Tiffany. It feeds her narcissism and insatiable need to film for YT.
I wonder what happened later in the day when she said things went downhill. Wondering if some preliminary results of her tissues came back and weren't good? Or perhaps her pain increased?
THAT filming just makes their duties take longer. Thank you Saydee for some very ON POINT articles about this issue. Just because you have a "hectic" surgery does not give you the right to take over the ward with your YT film crew.Yes patients have a right to privacy, but t doesn’t care about others.
I suppose as adults we know what’s right from wrong.
Whenever I have been on a ward I know not to watch anything on my iPad without using my earphones.
I keep my phone on silent. If I need to make a call I will leave the ward and go to the day room to talk on the phone. If I am too unwell to leave the ward? I send a text message instead of making a call.
If a fellow patient was talking to a camera or filming I would have no problem telling them there is a time and place and to remind them hospital wards are for sick patients, not documentary makers. If they didn’t stop it off, I would ask the nurse if I could be moved to a different ward bay and explain why. Nurses generally want their shift to go quickly and smoothly which is why they probably put up with t filming, but T should know her boundaries. She is old enough to know.
Probably ran out of lip balm.
!!! You have a way of summing it up no nicely......thats probably it.
The United Kingdom is not part of the European Union, so it is surprising that the 'European Convention on Human Rights' is quoted as an example to follow. Maybe this convention refers to geographical Europe.Interesting article about unwelcome photography in hospitals:
...
"...the European Convention on Human Rights Art. 8 provides for a right to respect for a private and family life. Accordingly, the patient in hospital has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The privacy element will be immediately engaged if there is a patient who inadvertently forms the background of the unwanted image taken in the hospital. This may be on the ward, in a corridor, or within a clinical department such as radiology. It is perfectly possible her identity may be revealed by her appearance, to those who recognise her. There may be outwardly obvious signs of illness, such as jaundice or emaciation, which she wishes to remain confidential. Should her written name appear in the photograph, identification will be instant. Written details on her notes may also be in view, compromising her confidentiality further.
Our staff can and should object to being photographed without their consent. In the course of their employment in the hospital, where patient confidentiality is of such great importance, the staff can share the reasonable expectation that at work they will not be photographed without their consent. Their rights as citizens are not diminished by the fact that they are at work. They are fully entitled to request that the image is deleted, although have no power to insist on deletion; or to remove the device or the memory card. However, they remain free, as private citizens, to take civil action against unwelcome or intrusive photography performed without their consent.
The Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 s119 may also provide us with some help. It relates to visitors (although not the patient himself) who (i) causes ‘nuisance and disturbance on NHS premises to a staff member and (ii) refuses to leave the premises when asked to do so.
In plain English, the reasonable onlooker may well conclude that unauthorised photography in a hospital setting is a ‘nuisance’; and the confrontation that follows, a ‘disturbance’."
I understand your stance but just because they didn't stop her, it does not mean they were okay with it. It is not the nurses' job to educate a 30 year old woman. They have enough on their plate. It's Tiffany's job as an adult and social being to know what is appropriate and what isn't. It's like relying on others to stop us each time we are behaving inappropriately ... Like @Saydee said they probably let her cause they wanted everything to run smoothly. I imagine the nurses didn't want the hassle and I understand them.The United Kingdom is not part of the European Union, so it is surprising that the 'European Convention on Human Rights' is quoted as an example to follow. Maybe this convention refers to geographical Europe.
Tiffany has not video-taped other patients. If the nurses who were helping her to walk did not want to be in a video, they could have told her so in no uncertain terms rather than agree to it. I admire the nurses and all that they do to help patients. However, feeling sorry for them because they have been video-taped I do not, because these nurses could have just said 'No, miss, we kindly request that you put away the camera for this walk, and not be on the video.' People do need to speak up if they are uncomfortable with the video-taping. Tiffany, or anyone else, cannot guess what is bothering whom, or if talking into the camera in a muted voice is actually disturbing someone. Patients next to her do not necessarily know that she is filming because the dark curtains do provide visual privacy. Additionally, other than the talking into the camera that might be irritating sometimes, Tiffany does have the right to photograph herself, and to video-tape herself within the space allotted to her. The curtains do hide the others.
As for her speaking into the camera, what about people talking to their loved ones or friends on the phone? It is the same principle: Voices are heard whether someone talks to themselves into a camera, or whether someone is talking on the phone. On that point, how would the patients next to her even know if she is talking on the phone to someone, or talking to herself? They don't know that for sure, and as long as Tiffany records during the visiting hours, I really don't see how anyone could be upset (other than the staff, but they could have said 'No' to being filmed.) with Tiffany's filming in the hospital.
What if one patient has visitors for twice the amount of time that his/her neighbor does? Does a patient have the right to tell the next person that a visitor should stay less time just because he or she doesn't have visitors stay as long? I would think not. This is the same principle as talking into a phone. Patients have the right to talk into a phone. Whether or not there is someone on the other end of the phone is no one else's business, actually.
The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, it was instituted by the Council of Europe.The United Kingdom is not part of the European Union, so it is surprising that the 'European Convention on Human Rights' is quoted as an example to follow. Maybe this convention refers to geographical Europe.
The United Kingdom is not part of the European Union, so it is surprising that the 'European Convention on Human Rights' is quoted as an example to follow. Maybe this convention refers to geographical Europe.
"What does the ECHR have to do with the European Union?The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, it was instituted by the Council of Europe.
I think patients have an expectation of privacy whilst in the hospital and a right not to be concerned or to potentially have their images or voice(s)/private conversations in adjacent areas or medical information on charts or scheduling boards potentially captured, videotaped and broadcast over the internet by others without their consent.As for her speaking into the camera, what about people talking to their loved ones or friends on the phone? It is the same principle: Voices are heard whether someone talks to themselves into a camera, or whether someone is talking on the phone. On that point, how would the patients next to her even know if she is talking on the phone to someone, or talking to herself? They don't know that for sure, and as long as Tiffany records during the visiting hours, I really don't see how anyone could be upset (other than the staff, but they could have said 'No' to being filmed.) with Tiffany's filming in the hospital.
What if one patient has visitors for twice the amount of time that his/her neighbor does? Does a patient have the right to tell the next person that a visitor should stay less time just because he or she doesn't have visitors stay as long? I would think not. This is the same principle as talking into a phone. Patients have the right to talk into a phone. Whether or not there is someone on the other end of the phone is no one else's business, actually.
I think you will find that if you look, there is the same published rules for the UK NHS hospitals too.The United Kingdom is not part of the European Union, so it is surprising that the 'European Convention on Human Rights' is quoted as an example to follow. Maybe this convention refers to geographical Europe.
Tiffany has not video-taped other patients. If the nurses who were helping her to walk did not want to be in a video, they could have told her so in no uncertain terms rather than agree to it. I admire the nurses and all that they do to help patients. However, feeling sorry for them because they have been video-taped I do not, because these nurses could have just said 'No, miss, we kindly request that you put away the camera for this walk, and not be on the video.' People do need to speak up if they are uncomfortable with the video-taping. Tiffany, or anyone else, cannot guess what is bothering whom, or if talking into the camera in a muted voice is actually disturbing someone. Patients next to her do not necessarily know that she is filming because the dark curtains do provide visual privacy. Additionally, other than the talking into the camera that might be irritating sometimes, Tiffany does have the right to photograph herself, and to video-tape herself within the space allotted to her. The curtains do hide the others.
As for her speaking into the camera, what about people talking to their loved ones or friends on the phone? It is the same principle: Voices are heard whether someone talks to themselves into a camera, or whether someone is talking on the phone. On that point, how would the patients next to her even know if she is talking on the phone to someone, or talking to herself? They don't know that for sure, and as long as Tiffany records during the visiting hours, I really don't see how anyone could be upset (other than the staff, but they could have said 'No' to being filmed.) with Tiffany's filming in the hospital.
What if one patient has visitors for twice the amount of time that his/her neighbor does? Does a patient have the right to tell the next person that a visitor should stay less time just because he or she doesn't have visitors stay as long? I would think not. This is the same principle as talking into a phone. Patients have the right to talk into a phone. Whether or not there is someone on the other end of the phone is no one else's business, actually.
Yes, the example I mentioned specifically in my post was T recording during the middle of the night. The nurse had come to give her anti sickness meds during the night. T was recording and asking the nurse what the medication was so that T could tell her viewers. Not during the day. In the early hours of the morning. Its rude and disrespectful to others.I understand your stance but just because they didn't stop her, it does not mean they were okay with it. It is not the nurses' job to educate a 30 year old woman. They have enough on their plate. It's Tiffany's job as an adult and social being to know what is appropriate and what isn't. It's like relying on others to stop us each time we are behaving inappropriately ... Like @Saydee said they probably let her cause they wanted everything to run smoothly. I imagine the nurses didn't want the hassle and I understand them.
How do you know Tiffany only records during the visiting hours? Maybe she records at all times, we know how addicted she is to the camera.
C-Diff patients have to be isolated for infection control purposes. They have priority for a single room as they need their own toilet. For non-infectious patients, especially those nurse in special care - there are usually lots of beds close together for monitoring/staffing purposes. A nurse can look after two patients if they can see both monitors from the same place etc.I watched it....again I have more questions....not familiar at all with RM or NHS...but it that considered a room? Is she going to be transferred to something more private like she had for the C-diff. Is it like this because step down that still have lots of machines going that need to be monitored?
well thank you ...makes so much sense...that C diff room was very nice.C-Diff patients have to be isolated for infection control purposes. They have priority for a single room as they need their own toilet. For non-infectious patients, especially those nurse in special care - there are usually lots of beds close together for monitoring/staffing purposes. A nurse can look after two patients if they can see both monitors from the same place etc.
HmmmmDoes anyone have any idea why Tiffany refers to lines/tubes in her body as “wires?”
Haha … well we will have to wait for more expiring food to be filmed and then start to fathom what day it rained, what day the sun was shining brightly and what day the tornado hitJust thinking...I would assume that along with releasing these past videos from her time in the hospital, Tiffany is also continuing to video her daily ongoing recovery at home. Makes me wonder how we'll ever catch up and get back to seeing real time (or at least closer to real time) videos.
Sorry but I don’t agree with you at all. Her filming on the ward with nurses and being followed with the camera was 1) stopping Tiffany actually getting on with it because she kept turning to talk to the person filming her and 2) it was causing more of a commotion than needed.Tiffany has not video-taped other patients. If the nurses who were helping her to walk did not want to be in a video, they could have told her so in no uncertain terms rather than agree to it. I admire the nurses and all that they do to help patients. However, feeling sorry for them because they have been video-taped I do not, because these nurses could have just said 'No, miss, we kindly request that you put away the camera for this walk, and not be on the video.' People do need to speak up if they are uncomfortable with the video-taping.
Bizarre isn’t it that even after the surgery, it’s still like some sort of secret!But that would either mean today's video is Day 3 or Day 8, and we know it's not Day 3, and she would be much more mobile by Day 8.
15th makes this Day 5, which seems more likely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?