An unusual letter from King's College Hospital

[Moos]

Sorry IV, but I don't think saying it's OK to ask for interest in finding out more about a charity and saying it's OK to charge for treatment are in the same league at all. Not even in the same direction.

[PeckhamRose]

.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thank you PeckhamRose .

I wonder if they were looking horrified because they imagined something illegal had been done .

The letter cunningly avoided that ,sent from CEO ,asking about whether receipient wanted to receive further info .

It would be nice to think that they were concerned about the targeting and general underhanded ( look at us ,we can pull this mail shot off and stay within the letter of the law )ness of this .

Hopefully people at KIngs will think again when they are devising fund raising techniques .

[Huguenot]

I think it's a spectacular fail that petty ingrate potshots at this charity letter has disrupted a powerful force for good in the community, has disheartened well meaning people, and undoubtedly delivered a worse service for everyone.

You should be absolutely disgusted with yourselves. In my heart I know you won't be, you'll probably congratulate yourselves on how clever you are. This miserable bullshit really depresses me.

[intexasatthe moment]

Disrupted ?

As in temporarily ceasing to function/impaired ?

By this thread ?

[Huguenot]

I shouldn't imagine by this thread itatm, I think we'd be elevating ourselves :-S

KCH were perfectly reasonably asking for charitable support, what on earth is going on in your head when you start accusing them of 'illegal acts' and 'underhanded' 'cunning' behaviour is quite, quite beyond me. It's such an ugly opinion.

What's more, if they truly were 'horrified' it was because they cared. So now we've taken someone who cared and we've rubbed muck on their faces. The only real outcome is that after this petty abuse they'll now care just a little bit less. How terribly sad.

We've probably forced them into creating another unnecessary level of bureaucracy, definitely reduced their income, and probably they'll wake up in the morning and look forward to their day just a little bit less.

The only winners are the wallies who think they've achieved something. Big up on the ego, eh?

It's sour and bitter and unnecessary. The tragedy is that this pungent cynicism has now fecked it up for everyone.

So yeah, congratulations, woo woo, special.

[Keef]

I think it's a spectacular fail that petty ingrate potshots at this charity letter has disrupted a powerful force for good in the community, has disheartened well meaning people, and undoubtedly delivered a worse service for everyone.

You should be absolutely disgusted with yourselves. In my heart I know you won't be, you'll probably congratulate yourselves on how clever you are. This miserable bullshit really depresses me.

What he said!

[intexasatthe moment]

I've not accused anyone of illegal acts .

As I said the letter was within the law - as Kings explained earlier on this thread ,legal advice had been taken.

Most people reading the letter wouldn't ( IMO ) understand the implications of it being from the the CEO rather than the charity ,or that it was not just a straightforward request for donations rather than one asking whether you wanted to be kept updated .

If it had been a direct request for donations from the charity to recent inpatients it would ( as I understand it )have been illegal .Because it was from the CEO ,it wasn't illegal .Personally I think that equates to cunning and underhandedness .

My mother who received the letter didn't understand the legal niceties - as far as she was concerned Kings were using her address to write to her about nothing to do with her health . She felt it was a breach of privacy and it upset her .

I don't think that Kings should use patients data in this way - the fact that they've managed to find a way of avoiding breaking the law doesn't make it any better .

And I don't believe that it's on a par with consumer groups using one's name and address .

Your

So now we've taken someone who cared and we've rubbed muck on their faces. The only real outcome is that after this petty abuse they'll now care just a little bit less. How terribly sad.

The tragedy is that this pungent cynicism has now fecked it up for everyone. is all supposition .

This is a public forum ,I've expressed a view about one of the methods that Kings uses to raise money ,if this makes Kings or their charity reconsider their techniques or reflect on their impact ,then I'm glad .

[Giving to Kings]

From the Director of Fundraising, King's College Hospital

In answer to the post from Peckham Rose: I was present at the AGM last evening, as was the Chief Executive Tim Smart, the entire communications team and the assistant board secretary, who took minutes. I can say that this question was not raised at the event, in the 30 minutes of Q&A that followed the planned agenda, or afterwards with Tim over coffee. This would have been the best, public, opportunity to raise the question, and the answer would have been full and clear. I'm not sure therefore about the "looks of horror" you saw.

Thankyou for your ongoing personal support Hugenot, Keef and others:

My first encounter with King's was when my daughter suffered an extradural haematoma (that's a blood clot on the brain), and our ambulance driver told us she wouldn't survive. When she left hospital with us, several weeks later, I was determined to do something to help the hospital and staff that had saved her life. At the time I didn't know a hospital charity existed, or that some of the equipment used by her surgeon was funded by the charity. First I knew of the charity was when my job was advertised - it had my name on it, and here I am still 6 years later!

I will never "care less" about King's, and I know that, thanks to Tim's letter, there are several thousand more people who care as much as I do, who have written to tell me so. There will always be naysayers who object to things like this. I take comfort from those wonderful people who recognise that we are trying to make King's a better place for everyone.

Jane Ferguson

[Huguenot]

I think you're doing a wonderful job Jane, and I'm very glad that the attitude of some hasn't dragged you down as it has me.

itatm, this... "if this makes Kings or their charity reconsider their techniques or reflect on their impact ,then I'm glad"

Says it all really doesn't it?

You've fabricated an evil personality for KCH, criminalised them in your own mind, smeared them with insinuation and you're actually glad.

Psychologists have a concept called a 'Scotoma'. It's used to describe a facet of one's behaviour to which one is entirely blind, but which is clear as day to everyone else. If you are actually glad that you've laid into a charity that takes care of people's health, then trust me, your Scotoma is as large as a tank.

[PeckhamRose]

edited for errors

[RosieH]

Jane, great post, and Huguenot likewise.

I really really can't understand why people are so up in arms about charity fundraising. It feels to me like quite a British thing about wanting to have something to complain about, mountains, molehills, storms and teacups.

I personally hope that the fundraising is a great success.

[annaj]

Jane, I feel I owe you an apology as it was me who first suggested that people with concerns should contact you.

Please believe me when I say that my intention was only to help and certainly not to get you involved in this sort of unpleasant debate. At the time I felt there was lots of unease and specualtion which could all be cleared up by a response from your team. I'm sorry that my well-intended suggestion has raised such undeserved ill feeling towards you.

Reading back over this thread, though, something occurs to me.

Several people have talked about consent and their addresses being used without consent. This letter was, if I understand correctly, a letter to recent patients, from the hospital, asking if they would be interested in hearing about the charity.

In other words, a letter from the organisation that holds the patients' addresses, asking if they would like to hear from another, related, organisation.

In other words, it was a letter asking for consent for the patient's address to be shared with the charity.

So, it seems to me, on reflection, that the letter was trying to do the exact thing that people are complaining hasn't been done.

[intexasatthe moment]

Hugeunot - I've not " laid into " anyone .I've said that I don't like this technique of fundraising .

I don't know if you've seen the letter in question but the main body of it ,the clear message it gives out ,spelt out very clearly in the first few lines is that it is about giving to Kings charitable funds .

It does also mention ,at the end ,about keeping ones details on record for the purposes of updating the receipent .

I don't think that Kings should use patients addresses in this way and I think the letter is disengenious ,am I not entitled to that view ?

And for the record I have not expressed a view on whether Kings should be fundraising or not so I do not belong in the category ( if there is one ) of "being up in arms " about it .

[Huguenot]

Of course you're entitled to your view, and I'm entitled to mine. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm trying to shut you up.

Throughout your musings on this situation you've characterised KCH using terms such as 'cunning', 'underhand', 'devious', 'disingenuous' and 'illegal'.

My view is that your use of these terms is malicious, vindicitive and ludicrously wide of the mark.

Even your previous post didn't seem to make much sense. You said it 'spelt out very clearly in the first few lines is that it is about giving to Kings charitable funds', but then you called it 'disingenuous'. You can't be both clear and disingenuous at the same time. If it was disingenuous the meaning wouldn't be clear.

So for me, you're just lining up attacks regardless of their basis in truth.

The only possible outcome of attacks such as these is a worse hospital. Either you don't know this, in which case you won't mind me pointing it out, or you do know it and don't care, in which case you'll forgive me for clearing this up?

[SeanMacGabhann]

My favourite thing about public meetings is that you don?t have to ask any questions in public ? you can just have a quiet word afterwards with Some Important People (or some members of the team if you prefer) and then report that in the public domain instead. Even better, that way the people who made the effort to hold the meeting, document it and so on can all be bypassed

Genius

I mean:

?I was told that a lot of thought had gone in to whether this should have been done and a lot of people within the hospital thought it should not have been.?

Who exactly said it, and who exactly are ?a lot of people within the hospital?? And what reasons did they have for objecting? And what consitutes ?a lot??

Half the people?

10% of the people?

1% of the people?

If you spoke to some people after the meeting about this issue, chances are you attracted some people who wanted to complain ? so if they say ?a lot? of other people, how credible is that?

[Keef]

Quite right Sean. Sorry PR, but I have to agree with everything Sean just said about this public meeting lark.

[Timster]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Hi - sadly I was not able to ask my question in

> public through lack of time - so many people asked

> good questions.

> I raised it after with some of the team and a

> Director of Operations.

> They were the ones who looked in horror and told

> me to tell people to write to Tim.

> I am sorry and genuinely apologise if I gave the

> impression it was a question asked in the main

> event.

> It was not.

> I was told that a lot of thought had gone in to

> whether this should have been done and a lot of

> people within the hospital thought it should not

> have been.

> But what do I know, I am merely a patient and

> someone who bothers to turn up to meetings to

> reflect other people's concerns. I had indeed been

> a recent patient and remain one, yet have never

> received the letters. I asked questions for others

> who were not there.

What question did you ask exactly? "Did you know there are some mad people who object to King's raising funds by sending letters to recent patients?" I would have been horrified to discover some people could be so anal and unsympathetic to people's efforts to do a bit of good in the world.

[Bellenden Belle]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

> But what do I know, I am merely a patient and

> someone who bothers to turn up to meetings to

> reflect other people's concerns. I had indeed been

> a recent patient and remain one, yet have never

> received the letters. I asked questions for others

> who were not there.

PeckhamRose - on your own admission you have not received the letter. Whilst it is admirable that you take the time to support your local hospital by turning up to these public meetings, perhaps you should use it as an opportunity to voice your own personal concerns, rather than choosing to speak up for "others who were not there".

Quite frankly, had your question been asked in public you may have found many people would have had the opportunity to put forward the alternate opinion, that this is a worthy cause deserving of public support and recognition - as has been demonstrated by this very thread.

[PeckhamRose]

Who did go to this meeting?

[SeanMacGabhann]

For a writer you seem to be confusing opposition to vitriol

You are on nodding terms with "disingenuous" tho

[Bellenden Belle]

Well quite SM....

PR - you expressed support of other people's questions / views earlier on in this thread and the tone of your posts suggests you oppose the letter - while ironically you appear quite indignant at times to have not received one.

So at least say that's your view - don't pretend you are being impartial : 'Me? Dont question me! I'm just asking is all.....'

[Ladymuck]

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

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

> Quite frankly, had your question been asked in

> public you may have found many people would have

> had the opportunity to put forward the alternate

> opinion, that this is a worthy cause deserving of

> public support and recognition - as has been

> demonstrated by this very thread.

I don't believe that "this is a worthy cause deserving of public support and recognition" is in dispute. As far as I can gather, it is mainly the approach undertaken by Kings which appears to be fuelling some concern.

Your comments interested me though - sufficiently to prompt a quick scan through the thread. To me, it would appear that people's opinions (according to the EDF collective at least) are fairly evenly split: 10 posters are fine with the Trust's method of targetting, 11 are not, and 11 haven't specifically commented either way.

[Mick Mac]

I will always be indebted to Kings, following the life saving operation they performed on my wife kast year.

I have just made a donation to Kings, online. I was encouraged to do this by this thread and also the care we received last year and the care we have always received at Kings.

However, despite this, I think its completley inappropriate to write to former patients making reference to charitable giving, nothing to do with personal information or addresses, I just think its wrong to approach people who may feel they should/ought to give as they have received care, closely followed by a letter. Its wrong to link the two.

[Ladymuck]

Ha ha Mick Mac - we have just X-posted...but I agree, this is all about the approach. I too have received excellent care under Kings (and still do).