Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Timster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I still think this is absurd.

>

> 1. The GMC guidelines relate to medical

> information (not names and addresses) and whether

> it should be passed on to third parties. I assume

> you wouldn't object if the hospital used your name

> and address to write to tell you'd dropped your

> credit card in an outpatient's waiting room.

> Nobody is passing the details of STD sufferers to

> condom manufacturers so they can include them in a

> direct marketing campaign.

>

> 2. The issue in this case is covered by Data

> Protection which again relates to passing on of

> information - not using YOUR name and address to

> write to YOU. I appreciate there may be a grey

> area here in that the charity is distinct from the

> trust but that strikes me as technicality.

>

> 3. No names and addresses are being passed on -

> the letters are being sent to people who already

> know they visited hospital. DulwichMum's point is

> only relevant (and I assume the letters only go to

> people 18 and over) if someone else opens your

> mail and I am afraid a hospital shouldn't have to

> factor in an adult's inability to protect his or

> hers own privacy. The battered mother who'd had a

> termination she hadn't told her partner about

> would be written to anyway by the hospital for

> medical reasons.

>

> 4. Nobody needs permission to write to you and

> that is why we all receive junk mail every day.

> If an organisation with your details writes to you

> and you don't want them to again, then you can

> request that they take your name off their mailing

> list. The same would apply to Kings.

>

> 5. So what if someone gives some money because

> they feel guilty. That's why I give money to

> charity. That's how charities survive. Do you

> honestly believe vulnerable people's livelihoods

> are threatened every time they receive a request

> for a charitable donation?

>

> Sorry for the bullet points.

>

> PS I am surprised no one has objected to the plan

> to put mugshots up in the A&E waiting room of

> every recent patient that has refused to make a

> donation.


although i think that we're broadly in the same camp, i don't think that quite a bit of the above is accurate about what you should and shouldn't do with personal data

Timster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's broadly correct pk. (Out of interest, which

> bits do you think are wrong?)


i might be wrong as it's not really an area that i know everything about but i think:


2. the data protection act does not relate only to passing on information but to how data is used

and the charity being a different entity is more than a technicality


3. as such, names are being passed on - from the hospital to the charity


4. people should generally not send unsolicited mail to people without having collected appropriate consents

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.

PK I'm sure tha the above points must have come up during negotiatons with the ICO, who's job it is to govern this.


My understanding was that the letter was from the hospital on behalf of the charity, so no data would have been transferred over to the charity.


If the ICO say that there are no issues with this, then we are just going to have to accept that there are no issues with this no matter how much people look fo them.


The ICO are the law as far as this type of thing goes.

> know everything about but i think:

>

> 2. the data protection act does not relate only to

> passing on information but to how data is used

> and the charity being a different entity is more

> than a technicality

>

> 3. as such, names are being passed on - from the

> hospital to the charity

>

> 4. people should generally not send unsolicited

> mail to people without having collected

> appropriate consents



2 and 3 you're right about but I still think it is a technicality and would be looked at in the overall context of whether patients could reasonably expect their data to be passed on to the charity.


4 is wrong - no consent is needed. you have the right to ask someone to stop sending you unsolicited mail, or when you hand over your personal data to request that they do not use it to send you mail, but there is no positive obligation on someone who stores and process personal data to obtain your consent before sending you unsolicited mail.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.


but in these particular circumstances advice has been sought from lawyers and the office of the information commissioner so it seems likely that this mailing is compliant


as such, and in general, it strikes me as sensible activity that's trying to do something positive

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.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.


Why would you want to do this???? What would it achieve??? Stop King's from raising money?


I want to see what part of the GMC guidelines this breached.

If anyone received a letter and found it inappropriate, I suggest they reply asking to be removed from the fundraising mailing list.


Other people... suggest you mind your own business and stop trying to drag King's through the dirt. I think your behaviour is absolutely disgraceful.



the key question, as others have raised is WHY? Why would you want to challenge this? As I've said even if you had the time and inclination and won, (which you wouldn't), yuo would have achieved precisely nothing. Worse than nothing

And sorry to harp on about this but if you give someone your address, that person doesn't need to then obtain your consent to write to you, because it's self-evident that is what they will use your address for. It would be impossible for business to function at all if DJ was right. That's why the ICO website talks about people having the right to object to direct marketing etc - not businesses having to obtain consent to direct market to you.

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.

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.

This morning, I received a letter from a man called Mike.


He is offering to clean my carpets - for half price. After a long talk with my girlfriend - and some heated conversations with friends and family - we have agreed to put his letter into the blue recycling bag.


I'm just 'putting this out there' in case anyone else is currently working themselves into a similarly pointless lather by way of a clipboard, hi-vis jacket, biro and google-powered deconstruction of privacy law - to no particular useful end whatsoever.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
    • Sadly, the price we now all pay for becoming a soft apologetic society.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...