Dear Editor,
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I’m now convinced that something is seriously wrong at our two tabloid newspapers, Kaieteur News and Stabroek News.

How else can one explain their crass actions, not only as it pertains to the dead, but also as it pertains to patients who are already distressed in hospital, to be now confronted with flashing cameras, as they are recuperating or dying.

Mr. Editor to be in hospital is quite distressing. To be in hospital, desperately unwell, where you feel powerless to determine your own destiny creates incomparable anxiety. To be in a hospital, where you would have shared confidential details of yourself to healthcare professionals would make anyone feel vulnerable. These emotions are not only restricted to patients, but also their loved ones. For young children these emotions are magnified. They would be confused. They would feel scared.

These psychology experiences can, in some cases, be irreversible. Some patients may require counselling upon being discharged from the hospital. It is this knowledge that informs medical training as it pertains to medical ethics. One of the areas modern-day healthcare professionals are trained in is patient confidentiality. This is multi-faceted. Firstly, whatever a patient shares with a doctor, unless it is a confession of a crime or to cause harm to others, is treated in the strictest of confidence. This is critical, without which, the patient would withhold life-changing information from us, out of concern of it being disclosed.

The second aspect is dignity. In effect the patient is expected to be treated with respect, both in life and death. The third aspect is autonomy. This essentially means as human we can determine our destinies. We can determine if we wish to cooperate or not cooperate with treatment. The fourth aspect pertinent to what I wish to address today is, informed consent. As healthcare professionals, we cannot undertake an intervention, whether invasive or noninvasive, without discussing it with the patient to get the go ahead.
It is important to understand that a patient must have the capacity to give consent. In other words, the patients must be able to, at the most basic of levels, understand what he/she he consented to and must be able to compare the risks with the benefits which serve as a guide for their decision. Children generally cannot give consent for certain procedures since, quite frankly, they are not mentally mature.

Today, I saw a photo of a child, who is an inpatient on the burns unit of GPHC displayed on the pages of Kaieteur News under the headlines, “Burns patients to receive counselling.” First and foremost, I should state that this is another positive achievement by the government. Burns are not only physically traumatic, but are also psychologically traumatic. The scars resulting from burns are life changing and a constant reminder of that trauma.

What has happened in this case is that Kaieteur news, either intentionally or unintentionally, placed a dark cloud over the government’s achievement. Kaieteur News not only breached the many aspects of medical ethics highlighted, but also dehumanised the underage patient. They labelled the underage patient as “photo of GPHC.” I can bet all my ocular muscles, at the risk of developing ophthalmoplegia, that this child’s name is not GPHC.

It is for these reasons that I have a few polite questions. Who give Kaieteur News the consent to take this photo? This not only breached this young child’s confidentiality, but potentially the confidentiality of other patients on the wards. Also by taking this photo, this young child is being treatment like a specimen for all curious eyes to examine. Isn’t she worth more than that?  To me this whole episode is very bad. The fact is that cameras and taking of photos are banned from most hospitals and rightfully so. The second question is who give consent for this picture to be taken? This child can’t since she cannot undertake the ethical complexities and implications of having this photo taken. This issue not only highlights a lack of consent, but also a complete disregard to patients’ autonomy.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time I’ve seen this in kaieteur news. On many occasions, they would have displayed on their pages, patients with varying degrees of injuries, patients clearly mentally distressed and unconscious patients. One does not need to be medically trained to understand these medical ethical concepts since they are essentially commonsensical.

Having said that, I will reduce them to a level that Glenn Lall can understand. Imagine Mr. X is being unfaithful to his wife. His lover, Lady Y, is in hospital on the obstetrics ward after delivering a healthy baby. Mr. X is in her company on the obstetrics ward with their baby which they name ‘Lil XY’. Kaieteur News turns up on the ward, took a photo of a patient who is not happy with her hospital care.

Picture is subsequently plastered on their front page, with usual exaggerated headlines. There is just one problem. Mr. X, Lady Y and Lil XY are all clearly in the background of the picture, without their consent.
What you think would happen Glenn Lall?  I can assure you that not only Mr. X would have big troubles, but you yourself will have massive legal troubles. Always think before pictures are published.

Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish