|
Why such controversy over prank?
|
 (December 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm)Annik Wrote: Actually, she just picked up the phone and handed if off because the proper receptionist was not there. She was just a nurse and I don't blame her for not understanding receptionist protocols. She was acting as receptionist, which is my point. The people sitting at reception in the nurse's station are always nurses.  (December 9, 2012 at 2:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: P.S. Germans, you don't seem to know what the word "verbose" means. Indeed, I attributed a meaning to a word, which turned out to not be the true meaning of that word. Cant believe that I actualy looked all this nonsence up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_th...tity_theft http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/access-to-so...cords.aspx So yes, from a legal point of view, the 2 pranksters have commited a crime. 
No, Germans. Sorry, dude, but that is not identity theft. You are misinterpreting that crime, big time. Impersonating a person to commit a prank is not impersonating a person for financial, medical care or other legally fraudulent means. Seriously. If what you describe was identity theft, every fucking comedian who ever did an impersonation would be guilty.
The nhs link is the importent one.
medical files are classefied and can therefor not be accessed without the patients concent.
Unfortunately, that is discussing documents, not hearsay from a nurse. Those are two very different things, as with one, it is a document containing information as personal as tax identification numbers, addresses and phone numbers. It's not illegal to my knowledge. It doesn't even fall under doctor patient confidentiality.
(December 10, 2012 at 2:53 am)Shell B Wrote: under doctor patient confidentiality. that`s the word I was looking for. The condition of a patient always falls under "doctor patient" confidentiality. I would be suprised if it wouldn`t. And when publicly broadcasting the medical condition of a patient without that patients concent - that defenatly is a breach. And I am certain that the way with which they optained this information can be considered to be fraud. (and not identety theft)
The nurses are not doctors, firstly. At most, to my knowledge, they would be in trouble at work, which they were not in this case. Secondly, doctor patient confidentiality is more a protection against a doctor testifying against a patient in court. This is to make it so people are not afraid to seek medical care in the case of a crime, such as heroin overdose. Thirdly, there could be laws against disclosing information, and I would be surprised if there were not, but there are no charges being pressed. Also, this would be an international crime, so it would have to be an international law. By calling the UK, they are not under UK law.
nurses still fall under patient doctor confidentiality. It doesn`t matter who you are - you could somehow find a persons medical file at random - you can still not legaly tell anyone what is in there.
nope, the confidentiality is not simply about doctor testifying in court, it also prevents things like a therapist telling random people about your problems, or a doctor selling your file to a pharmer company so they can add your file into a calculation of customor behavior, or a doctor giving privat details from a celebrety to a tabloid. Every heard of a thing called. "Right to privacy"? I am suprised that there are currently no charges, but considering the recent release of the leverson report there could very likely be one. 
Of course you can tell people if you find it at random. Information is free, and can't be "protected" the way you think it can Germans. If you find someone's medical file at random, you can publish it, do whatever you want with the information - so long as you didn't acquire it illegally.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
