Oh yes, that'll be great... Rule 1: doctor should tell if patient may commit crimes Rule 2: doctor may not disclose anything about their patient
If the doctor breaks any of these rules, he may face being summoned in court and losing his doctors license. Naturally, neither rule takes precedence, since there's not been careful thought about this.
Doctor-patient confidentiality has always been less important than the safety of the patient and the people around them. IME, it's always been the case that if you showed signs of being a real danger to yourself and others, your doctor would be obliged to inform people with the power to stop/help you, and you were reliant on your doctor being sensible enough to recognise that you saying "I really hate my neighbours" does not pose a "real danger" to them.
Not sure about over here, but when I was in highschool in Canada it was technically that they would only break confidentiality if you made an actual threat to harm yourself or another; "I wish I could just hit someone" being not an actual threat, but "I am going to punch my brother's lights out tomorrow" being more serious.
It still leaves a lot down to the judgement of the doctor or other professional(s) involved... but it's a lot different than "tipping off" police about people who drink heavily, have mental health problems or have a violent background.
I've seen some doctors make some very odd seeming decisions and have some dodgy reactions, but I think the vast majority of them know when they hear something that concerns them enough to call somebody to protect you or others.
I can see this not working so well with some dodgy guidelines telling them to be on the lookout for specific behaviours or circumstances which they have to tell the police about. Depending on how the guidelines and the law is written, this may make doctors far more inclined to tell the police about people that are not actually going to do anything either because they (rightly or wrongly) interpret the guidelines/law that way, or might lower the threshold of risk where they make that decision because of the laws existence. What about consequences for the increased number of people that this would falsely accuse of being unsafe?
Put looking for risk factors with the NHS Care records service, and you have profiling based on medical records, possibly completely away and without the knowledge of the patient and their doctors. Fun.
About the prevention thing: I'd hate to see that become a law. What will it imply?
Will people who have a co-worker that performed a legal offence be prosecuted for negligence if they didn't report that something might happen?
What will happen with someone reported by someone else as a potential offender/victim? Will they be put under surveillance? Will their phone be tapped? Are reported potential offenders guilty until proven innocent? It seems like it, since they will be under surveillance and will probably be so, since "if they didn't commit their crime today, they could do so tomorrow, so we'll have to keep watching them"...
I think it's an invasion of the "innocent until proven guilty" part of legal enforcement. There's good reason for the "innocent until proven guilty": it is almost impossible to prove you're innocent, while it is possible to prove you guilty. Therefor, people should remain innocent until they are proven guilty, cause if you start with "guilty until proven innocent" you have very little chance in a legal system, even though you didn't do it. This article, however, seems to suggest exactly that: you're guilty, since someone said you could commit this crime.
It's probably another case of "hey, if you don't commit crimes, you have nothing to hide, so you won't have any problems with surveillance" ideas. Which is utter bullshit, I have things I don't want anyone to find out, and plenty of things I wouldn't want just anybody to know. And I'm not alone: everyone has things they prefer to keep to themselves or to only trusted persons.
I think this is rooted in trying to prevent terrorism or some hideous crime (where there any in Britain recently, or is this rule really because of a wooden ship burning?) Argl, saddens me sometimes to see how effective crimes and terrorism can be at making people attempt to pass laws that haven't been thought out carefully.
And on the point of the ship burning: it's wood, for crying out loud! Wood burns, and is very good at that! Yes, naturally there is a cause, however, the cause may just as well be that the dry dock the ship was in wasn't designed properly: there could have been a combination of windows creating a light focus point (yeah, unlikely at night, I know). There could have been a blowtorch or welding equipment that triggered wood to start smoldering, or that equipment hasn't been turned off properly. Why does everyone immediately assume there's some person with a grudge towards the ship trying to get even? Why assume a crime, if you don't yet have a motive? (Yes, detectives should start with the possibility of a crime, but that's their job. But even they have to consider the possibility of an accident and things other than crimes.)
I love the way they throw in "perpetrators *or victims* of serious violence". How the bleeding fuck can you detect someone who's going to be a victim of violence? All that's there for is to make people think this isn't entirely about spying on us.
Also this is pretty much already the law if an eleven year old goes to the Doctor and says "hello I need contraception because I am having sex with my teacher".
Nightvision CCTV, that's what will stop arson. More of that near historic buildings please.
I should probably have quoted more extensively: the full line from the article is "Mr King suggests two new agencies be created - one to collate reports on potential offenders, the other on potential victims."
Someone who is being beaten up by their partner is not a potential victim; they are already a victim. Likewise for someone underage who is having sex with their teacher.
Because everyone who's an alcoholic or has mental heath problems is an axe murder/paedophile/arsonist/insert anxiety crime of the day. How are untrained staff supposed to be "sufficiently concerned" anyway? Do criminals generally go around discussing openly what they're about to do in front of people that may blab about it to the police?
And as i_am_arianearen't a risk? Oh we'll just keep you under surveillance indefinitely because we can't be sure. Because police resources are limited, they'll have less to when they identify something a bit more complete. I can see them not bothering to do it properly and people screaming about it when someone else dies.
What's worse is that if they do this it will catch someone where it looks like they were preparing for something and will hail it a great success, even though it's likely that many people were grassed on for no reason and now may find difficulty getting certain jobs, even though they've done nothing wrong just someone thought they were a bit strange and dangerous.
Wait, alcoholism? Doesn't that potentially include, ooh, half of MPs? Asked how much they drink, I bet they drink a lot more then 21 units. So... :P
And no telling your psychiatrist that you have violent dreams or anything like that under these new plans. Let's hope they can figure out how to help given even less information because people are given reasons to be paranoid. And if they suspect a patient is hiding something... :P
And whilst I'm at it, there's yesterday's:
Warning over 'talking CCTV' plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6610139.stm) [news.bbc.co.uk] and Police chief's 'Orwellian' fears (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6673579.stm) [news.bbc.co.uk]
You might find this Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/?p=336) article interesting: it looks at the statistics of it all. I think at the time it was written, there was talk of preventitive detainment of mental health patients...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:12 pm (UTC)Rule 1: doctor should tell if patient may commit crimes
Rule 2: doctor may not disclose anything about their patient
If the doctor breaks any of these rules, he may face being summoned in court and losing his doctors license. Naturally, neither rule takes precedence, since there's not been careful thought about this.
Poor doctors...
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 03:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 10:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 10:55 am (UTC)It still leaves a lot down to the judgement of the doctor or other professional(s) involved... but it's a lot different than "tipping off" police about people who drink heavily, have mental health problems or have a violent background.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 04:05 pm (UTC)I can see this not working so well with some dodgy guidelines telling them to be on the lookout for specific behaviours or circumstances which they have to tell the police about. Depending on how the guidelines and the law is written, this may make doctors far more inclined to tell the police about people that are not actually going to do anything either because they (rightly or wrongly) interpret the guidelines/law that way, or might lower the threshold of risk where they make that decision because of the laws existence. What about consequences for the increased number of people that this would falsely accuse of being unsafe?
Put looking for risk factors with the NHS Care records service, and you have profiling based on medical records, possibly completely away and without the knowledge of the patient and their doctors. Fun.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:07 pm (UTC)Will people who have a co-worker that performed a legal offence be prosecuted for negligence if they didn't report that something might happen?
What will happen with someone reported by someone else as a potential offender/victim? Will they be put under surveillance? Will their phone be tapped? Are reported potential offenders guilty until proven innocent? It seems like it, since they will be under surveillance and will probably be so, since "if they didn't commit their crime today, they could do so tomorrow, so we'll have to keep watching them"...
I think it's an invasion of the "innocent until proven guilty" part of legal enforcement. There's good reason for the "innocent until proven guilty": it is almost impossible to prove you're innocent, while it is possible to prove you guilty. Therefor, people should remain innocent until they are proven guilty, cause if you start with "guilty until proven innocent" you have very little chance in a legal system, even though you didn't do it. This article, however, seems to suggest exactly that: you're guilty, since someone said you could commit this crime.
It's probably another case of "hey, if you don't commit crimes, you have nothing to hide, so you won't have any problems with surveillance" ideas. Which is utter bullshit, I have things I don't want anyone to find out, and plenty of things I wouldn't want just anybody to know. And I'm not alone: everyone has things they prefer to keep to themselves or to only trusted persons.
I think this is rooted in trying to prevent terrorism or some hideous crime (where there any in Britain recently, or is this rule really because of a wooden ship burning?) Argl, saddens me sometimes to see how effective crimes and terrorism can be at making people attempt to pass laws that haven't been thought out carefully.
And on the point of the ship burning: it's wood, for crying out loud! Wood burns, and is very good at that! Yes, naturally there is a cause, however, the cause may just as well be that the dry dock the ship was in wasn't designed properly: there could have been a combination of windows creating a light focus point (yeah, unlikely at night, I know). There could have been a blowtorch or welding equipment that triggered wood to start smoldering, or that equipment hasn't been turned off properly. Why does everyone immediately assume there's some person with a grudge towards the ship trying to get even? Why assume a crime, if you don't yet have a motive? (Yes, detectives should start with the possibility of a crime, but that's their job. But even they have to consider the possibility of an accident and things other than crimes.)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 10:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 06:01 pm (UTC)(here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/pplfichi/224959.html))
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:46 pm (UTC)Oh well, one more reason not to go to my GP.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 04:58 pm (UTC)Nightvision CCTV, that's what will stop arson. More of that near historic buildings please.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 05:45 pm (UTC)Someone who is being beaten up by their partner is not a potential victim; they are already a victim. Likewise for someone underage who is having sex with their teacher.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 11:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 02:41 pm (UTC)It's going to be a crime to fail to report someone who could potentially commit a crime in the future? Did I slip through a timewarp to Stalin's USSR?
...
Date: 2007-05-21 03:16 pm (UTC)And as
What's worse is that if they do this it will catch someone where it looks like they were preparing for something and will hail it a great success, even though it's likely that many people were grassed on for no reason and now may find difficulty getting certain jobs, even though they've done nothing wrong just someone thought they were a bit strange and dangerous.
Wait, alcoholism? Doesn't that potentially include, ooh, half of MPs? Asked how much they drink, I bet they drink a lot more then 21 units. So... :P
And no telling your psychiatrist that you have violent dreams or anything like that under these new plans. Let's hope they can figure out how to help given even less information because people are given reasons to be paranoid. And if they suspect a patient is hiding something... :P
And whilst I'm at it, there's yesterday's:
Warning over 'talking CCTV' plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6610139.stm) [news.bbc.co.uk]
and Police chief's 'Orwellian' fears (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6673579.stm) [news.bbc.co.uk]
I think I might just repost this...
no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 11:27 am (UTC)