DJKillaQueen

A bit early for the stella isn't it Quids.....even on a Friday? >:D

Something bit me last night in my bedroom of all places and I felt it instantly. Small lump there now. Couldn't see nothing crawling flying or whatever. Grrrr....first time anything has bitten me in years tbh.

It probably some of woofs fleas......! Anyone got any Staykill? (the very very best flea spray) >:D<

I kind of have mixed feelings on TB. I agree with Mic and Jah in that his government did some very good things, minimum wage, reinvestment in education and the NHS and so on, but there are other things on the home front that didn't happen. For example, job creation in the private sector barely increased (and the high youth unemployment we now is solely New Labour's creation). UK industry and manufacturing continued to shrink. There were fundamental things that didn't grow in what was supposedly a booming economy, and other things, like the gap between rich and poor that shouldn't grow in a boom, but did. Having said that I do think the country was a fairer place under Blair than it was under Thatcher. On the international front, I'm afraid Blair's narcissism got the better of him for me. His 'success' (and I use that term loosely) in Kosovo I think deluded his ambition for Iraq and Afgahnistan. He will be remembered for the latter, not the former. And the God thing just always annoyed the hell out of me too.

How interesting...but that's exactly the right thing for them to do (instead of breaching the current one) and as James says residents and other bodies will now have the right to influence the outcome on those variations.

Yeah exactly...the rules on the other board matter *double cough* but not the ones on here.... Definitely a TROLL duh. And I'm rather broed by him now..........tbh.....time to let this thread sink I think.

That will be welcome news for those residents that opposed and it is interesting to note that anti-social behaviour and under aged drinking were cited as reasons in part for refusal. Southwark Licensing do take complaints and breaches seriously so use them if ever you have issues with a licensed premise.

All that has to be done is to obtain consent from patients before adding them to a mail-shot list....problem sorted. I think people should be able to opt out of junk mail in the same way they can with virtually every other service provider. And I am not singling out Kings...I am simply taking part in a discussion about the law and the data protection act....doesn't matter who the subject of the discussion is.....the law applies to everyone.......that's all it is...an exploration of the law. And after all...that's what happens on forums...debate.

I've just looked at the ICO register. All bodies are required to register the way they process information by law with the ICO (there are some exemptions that aren't relevant here). There is one catagory for fundraising (purpose 8) but patients are not listed as a source for data. In other words the Hospital have NOT disclosed the use of patient data it seems in relation to fundraising related activities. You can view the Kings register enties here. Kings have disclosed the use of patient details for medically related activities for the following purposes - Health Administration and Services (purpose 3)/ Research (purpose 4)/ Public Health (purpose 6) and Administration of Membership Records (purpose 7). So I really would like to see evidence now to the claim that the ICO have sanctioned the use of patient data as debated above.

Even the ICO's own website states that a person must consent to way their information is processed so I think there are grounds for a challenge here. The information held on patients in fact has even tougher requirements because of the sensitive nature of some of that information. I'd like to see proof that the ICO sanctioned this process of sourcing patients addresses for a mailing list not related to their treatment, and the grounds by which it did so because there is nothing on their own website that disagrees with anything I've pointed out in relation to the law so far. The ICO are NOT the law by the way...they are a body that seeks to uphold the law....which is why they can be challenged if they get it wrong.

You misunderstand. The hospital itself has no right to use patients addresses for this mailout without their prior consent according to the GMC's own guidelines.

lol......you need to get the French to invade and overthrow me......!

That's absolutely right. Data protection protects type of use as well as confidentiality. There is definitely an issue with names and addresses being used for a different use without prior consent as far as I can see, from not only what the law says, but also the GMC's own guidelines on data protection.

You are a mongrel then? Even worse........

lol....I can play the clacking dentures!

Too late...I can see the headlines of 'Le Monde' as I write this....... 'Roast Beef Claims That French Are Animal!' French President Sarkozy is furious after a little know piece of Muck from a small poor province of Dulwich made the claim that 'frogs' are not human - citing a half French heritage as proof that the French only have brains the size of a pea! Mr Cameron acknowledged that an international crisis was looming as France threatened to close the chunnel and stop the export to Britain of cheese, wine, champagne and basically all the stuff we are no good at making for ourselves. French unions have called for the blockade and surrender of the UK to French rule. The East Sussex based historical re-enactment society were thrilled at the news and commented 'It's just like in the good ole days init.' See where careless talk leads LM?.....>:D<

That's awful Jmaes. And they they did it in broad daylight too...total scumbags. I really do hope you were insured.

But he hasn't told everyone...he's targeted recent patients. And I'm sorry but I care how my patient information...including my name and address is used. The law does too for very good reasons. It's the principle that matters here. I personally get very frustrated with anyone that says let's only enforce some rules and laws and ignore others. Why would anyone feel they ever had to abide by any rule in a world like that! There are plenty of other less intrusive ways that Kings can and do fund-raise. Breaking data protection laws should never be one of them, and nor should it be condoned if it happens.

Is there an age limit?

I slept right through it......once I'm asleep - wild horses wouldn't wake me....

Genius hilili........lol

Well all of the guidance for use of patient data (and a name and address alone is still classed as patient data) clearly seems to show that data can only be used within the realms of research and/or medical treatment or admin - and that in most cases consent is required by the patient for the use of that data in those ways. The earlier post said that it was the CEO who has sent out the fund raising info letter. To do that, he would have had to access patient records to obtain a list of recent patients or such a list would have been passed on to whichever administrator actually sent the letters out. That was done without patient consent to use that information for those purposes. I'm guessing that the fund raising department think that because the letter has come from 'within' the hospital that their is no issue with using patient names and addresses in this way (i.e. for unsolicited and targeted mail)(without consent). But from everything I can find, that appears to not be the case. Interestingly in America and Canada there are laws that do allow hospitals to contact former patients for fundraising related purposes, however all patients are given the option to opt out before receiving any such correspondance. The Law in Canada was only passed earlier this year following problems with data protection conflicts and targeted fundraising funnily enough.

no lol.....

I just found this.... UK General Medical Council guidance The UK's General Medical Council (GMC) produced guidance on Confidentiality: Protecting and Providing Information in September 2000.7 The guidance requires doctors to obtain patients' consent to disclose medical information except in exceptional circumstances, for example where the law requires disclosure. In the case of disclosure of information for the purposes of epidemiology, public health safety, education, medical audit and health service administration, the guidance states that doctors should still obtain the individuals' consent to use identifiable data (including the provision of patient lists of names and addresses with no other medical details) or arrange for members of the health care team to fully anonymize the data. I'm struggling to understand how it is OK for the CEO (I think an earlier post said it was the CEO) to take patients names and addresses and mail-shot them about fund raising when it's not deemed by the GMC as acceptable to pass on information within the realms of so many more appropriate uses of that information, without a patient's consent.

How can it possibly be appropriate to target recent patients with any kind of correspondance other than that which relates to either their treatment or their experiences of that treatment? Most service providers ask for consent before sending non-associated mail (the little box you either tick or untick). Whomever deemed fit to use patient data to then mail-shot them in this way is wrong imo. And just because a few people on a forum seem to not be bothered by that doesn't mean that it isn't innapropriate. It is also not true that any name and address can be sourced on the internet. Many people for example choose to have their details ommitted from the public copy of the electoral register, to have their phone numbers ommitted from published directories and use the TPS service. As for legality...the ONLY way Kings can draw up a list of recent patients is from patient data. Could my GP draw up a list of patients she saw in the past week and then send them all letters about a fund-raising charity working on behalf of her practise? I think most people would find that very innapropriate.