Monday, April 21, 2008

A couple of things have been nagging me since I read the story behind the Vicente Sotto Hospital Scandal aka Black Suede Scandal aka JanJan Issue.

First, is the Vicente Sotto in the hospital's name a relative of Vic Sotto? I am quite sure that somehow these two namesakes are related. Second, the gay guy got wind of the video through a friendly tip by one of his neighbors. I watched the video and the patient's face was never shown. How did the neighbor know that it was gay guy's rectum that was being operated on and shown on the net?

The gay guy knew that his surgery was videotaped and he did not demand to get the original copy . Does this mean that videotaping his procedure had his consent? Fourth, were they finally able to pinpoint who published the video on the net? I read somewhere that a nursing intern was the culprit. If this was so, the only issue regarding the medical staff would have been their joking and laughing at the patients' predicament while they were doing the surgery. Is this enough ground for the revocation of their licenses?

Just asking.


Reactions:
Posted by desperateblogger On 4/21/2008 06:07:00 PM 6 comments

6 comments:

  1. You mean, Teri Hatcher was right when she made comment about the state of Philippine-trained doctors?

    Well, you know, if you were the chief surgeon in your operating room and you suddenly see student nurses whipping out their cellular phones talking and filming your operation when you very well know that it's against hospital policy to have anyone having a recording device INSIDE the operating room but you still allowed them to do it ... then it's a matter of your leadership and you may be liable for infringement. There were as much as 4, even 5 recording of the operation, they found out.

    It doesn't matter if the video doesn't show the face. Or even if the patient signed a consent, the consent normally is for study or for archival records, NOT for broadcasting on YouTube or to be passed along from cellular phones to another. I doubt that they even knew about YouTube and cellular technology when the consent form was written. And if this was the case, usually, the consent would be for one recording, not 2 and certainly not 4.

    Put yourself in the patient's position - let say you went for a tonsil operation and then you then found that your lalamunan is all over the net ...

    It doesn't matter if the patient's face was not shown - it is so easy to call the hospital and ask who the patient was - there seems to be a breakdown of ethics in that hospital. Reports say that a few days after the video was uploaded to YouTube a neighbor of the patient called him to tell him that his operation was online. So much for not showing the face.

    ReplyDelete
  2. anonymous:
    You mean, Teri Hatcher was right when she made comment about the state of Philippine-trained doctors?

    teri hatcher said that Philippine-trained doctors are inadequate. as far as i know the VSH doctors were medically competent because the surgery was a success.

    if the chief surgeon was busy operating, maybe he did not notice? or maybe it was allowed?

    t doesn't matter if the video doesn't show the face. Or even if the patient signed a consent, the consent normally is for study or for archival records, NOT for broadcasting on YouTube or to be passed along from cellular phones to another. I doubt that they even knew about YouTube and cellular technology when the consent form was written. And if this was the case, usually, the consent would be for one recording, not 2 and certainly not 4.

    conflicting stand. the video of the surgery was not posted at youtube by the doctor. it was posted by one of the nursing inter, aka nursing student. if the doctor intended the video ti be out up at youtube, then the doctor would not have told the patient of the existence of the video.

    Put yourself in the patient's position - let say you went for a tonsil operation and then you then found that your lalamunan is all over the net ..

    ah but a tonsillectomy is not an unusual procedure. no one will be interested.

    Reports say that a few days after the video was uploaded to YouTube a neighbor of the patient called him to tell him that his operation was online. So much for not showing the face.

    that's it! that has been troubling me too. the patient's face was not show on the video but his neighbor told him that his surgical procedure was on youtube!

    1. did the patient tell his neighbor beforehand that he had an operation?

    2. did the neighbor recognize the black suede canister or (pardon me) his rectum?

    It doesn't matter if the patient's face was not shown - it is so easy to call the hospital and ask who the patient was -

    hospitals (even public ones) do not give out info about patients. do you sincerely believe that you can call a hopsital and ask "excuse me, i just saw a video at youtube of arectal surgery done at your hospital, can you tell me who the patient is"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. i'm just curious, how do you define medical competence? when people go to medical school, they're not just taught biology. they're taught ethics as well and if they can breach this code, then there is something seriously wrong.

    what conflicting stand are you talking about? your phrasing confuses me. what anonymous #1 said is true. if that consent form ever even exists, it definitely would not ask if ANYONE, doctor, nurse, intern, or JANITOR, can post the video on youtube. what does it even matter if it did? the bottom line is, these medical practitioners had been educated well enough on patients' rights so whether or not they had this guy's consent, the videos should never have existed except in private hospital records or archives.

    also, whether or not the operation was INTERESTING is out of the question. that was an ignorant thing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. anonymous:
    'm just curious, how do you define medical competence? when people go to medical school, they're not just taught biology. they're taught ethics as well and if they can breach this code, then there is something seriously wrong.

    biology is taught in premed, not in med school. medical competence is doing your job properly, ethics included. i'm sure you know some doctors. ask them if at one point in their professional lives they never found a case funny.

    what conflicting stand are you talking about? your phrasing confuses me. what anonymous #1 said is true. if that consent form ever even exists, it definitely would not ask if ANYONE, doctor, nurse, intern, or JANITOR, can post the video on youtube. what does it even matter if it did? the bottom line is, these medical practitioners had been educated well enough on patients' rights so whether or not they had this guy's consent, the videos should never have existed except in private hospital records or archives.

    the conflictins stand is in reference to anynomous 1's comment.
    read my comment and understand. I said the doctor had no intention of ever-publishing the video hecne he even told the patient. consent form or not NO ONE had the right to publish the video. the one who did, according to the news, is a nursing intern and not any of the attending doctors or nurses.

    also, whether or not the operation was INTERESTING is out of the question. that was an ignorant thing to say.

    what's ignorant about saying that the surgery was intersting.for me, it was interesting for that surgical case was not an everyday occurrence. for the rest ( youtube viewers, news readers) i think they also found the case interesting.

    now what am i doing replying to anonymously written comments?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @anonymous (1)
    "It doesn't matter if the patient's face was not shown - it is so easy to call the hospital and ask who the patient was - there seems to be a breakdown of ethics in that hospital."

    While I do agree that "there seems to be a breakdown of ethics in that hospital," I beg to disagree that:

    1. It doesn't matter if the patient's face was not shown, and;

    2. it is so easy to call the hospital and ask who the patient was.

    It MATTERS if the patient's face was not shown precisely because what it does is to hint at the possibility of the one who took the video to, at the least, avoid disclosing the patient's identity. If that's the case, then there is reason to believe that the one who took the video has the mentality that he can get away with the video simply because the patient won't recognize it's his rectum anyway, in much the same way as the public can't tell for certain whose ass it is shoved down the table. Which brings me to my next point.

    Which is that:

    it OUGHT NOT be "easy to call the hospital and ask who the patient was". I mean, is it really really that easy? Well, what can I say? That truly indeed must only be damning enough, quite apart from being worth all the castigations within the bounds of the law of the medical institution and of the country's law. That is so because if you can easily acquire the identity of a patient from a hospital, then there is something horrendously wrong with that hospital's standards. But certainly should not be the case. It should and ought, NOT be "easy to call the hospital and ask who the patient was."

    Now, you want to put Lena's foot into the patient's shoe, which is, I think, a "non sequitur" argument here. Simply because the circumstances:

    1. are not similar, i.e. equate tonsil operation with having to remove a perfume cannister out of your ass? Simply put, I don't see any convincing merit for putting forward an argument guilty of red herring.

    2. (in connection with the first) cannot be valuated in terms of one over the other, with the other, or any other you would want to put it. Let's not compare the rectum with the tonsil, or a rectum operation with a tonsil operation. Nobody wants his/her tonsils smell like an asshole, but that is certainly another story.

    ReplyDelete
  6. splice:

    very well said!

    the thing is i think it's time we stop responding to anonymously written comments. i mean if a commenter can't even say who he is is it worth our effort to respond to their comments? is it even worth it or right to publish their comments?

    i still have a nagging question. since the patient's face was never shown, how did the victim-patient's neighbor knew that the victim-patient's ass was the one being shown in youtube?

    ReplyDelete

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Youtube

Labels

Blog Archive

Followers

Grab My Badge

Pinay Mom Blogs

Membership

Powered by FeedBurner

First Commenter Club
PinoyBlogoSphere.com
Mom Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory
Personal - Top Blogs Philippines
Blog Directory
Listed on: Blog Directory
Cavite Province Websites

Copyright

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

    Vistor Locations

    Million Dollar List

    I'm # 608
    Get listed at www.millionbloglist.com

    Alexa Site Rank