录像带可以用来帮助在审判中的外科医生或妇科医生

原文：

Videotapes Can be Used Against Surgeon or Gynecologist at Trial

Physicians should know that patients can use their smartphones and other electronic products to tape alleged malpractice or negligence and introduce this evidence at trial. The presiding judge will determine whether the videotape may be presented.

Videotape, audiotape, and/or photographs may be introduced at trial if the proper foundation is laid as well as the material is pertinent, as outlined by Robert Kreisman, JD, medical malpractice as well as injury attorney with Kreisman Law Offices in Chicago. To inform the jury, videotape may be introduced to give place and time. Alternatively, it depends about the expertise of the videotape and just what it depicts. When the reason for the videotape is viewed through the court as a method to inflame the jury to 1 side or another, it will be inside the trial judge's discretion to dam the application of the videotape. If the standby time with the videotape would be to show some type of improper conduct or negligent health care, then your videotape could be utilized.

Specific consent isn't required to create recordings like X-rays and ultrasounds, laparoscopic images and other images of body organs, and recordings of organ functions, including ECGs, since patients' consent will be implicit in their accept to your analysis or treatment. If such images could be utilized in research, teaching or training, you should advise patients of the when seeking their accept to the procedure, and explain that they can only be employed in an anonymised form. Any other recordings made included in the investigation or treatments for someone need the patient's explicit consent, and you need to explain why it's going to help out with their care, what form it should take which is going to be stored securely. Recordings made for clinical purposes form part of the patient's medical record, and, as a result, any publication or disclosure of identifiable images has to be good GMC's guidance Confidentiality (2009). Which means that the consent from the patient is generally required; however, anonymised recordings works extremely well without consent for research, teaching or training. The guidance warns that one caution needs to be taken to ensure that the anonymity of images that could be published in almost any media accessible to the public, including journals and textbooks.

Privacy laws generally don't apply to public activities. From the closed room creating a discussion with a patient, I can't believe that a [doctor's] invasion of privacy claim could be very strong if the patient or even a patient's agent is the one doing the videotaping. If it is a 3rd party videotaping by having a peephole, then that might be an alternative story.

Before video evidence works extremely well as evidence within a trial, the litigant generally must prove how the evidence is pertinent and reliable. A court determines both requirements and could exclude evidence which has no touching on a material trouble in the case.

Appears to be trouble in the case is that an individual was ignored, and also the videotape shows staff stepping over the patient who was passed out in the grass, this will probably be admissible, he states. Conversely, if your videotape shows the patient relaxing in a chair with other patients expecting a space to spread out up, as there are no relationship for the care provided and it is not likely admissible by court.

Video recordings which are not admissible at trial may still be admissible in administrative hearings or during arbitration hearings, since rules of evidence usually are not as stringent in these proceedings. If you don't which can be done in order to avoid patients from posting video recordings online, or sending the recordings to television stations to ensure videos could be scrutinized in the courtroom of public opinion. In addition to using recorded video, there are many legal issues involved with obtaining such video.

By introducing audiovisual evidence to get an edge at trial, a celebration to civil litigation may be admitting guilt of a crime. While there may be a distinction from the legality of needing purely video vs. video and audio recordings, for the most part, portable electronic devices record both video and audio streams, and there is usually no chance to disable audio before recording begins.

Since the majority laws criminalize recording of unauthorized audio, an audiovisual recording by which a solid stream was later removed would still violate laws applicable to recording oral conversations. The legal right to take purely video recordings of another person is not absolute, either. Earning any form of recording through which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy may violate state or federal privacy laws, subjecting anyone making those recordings to civil and even criminal liability, he adds.

Whatever the case, a medical facility cannot prevent a patient from recording an encounter and possesses little capability to take action against someone who has done this. The one action a medical facility may take is to request the patient leave the premises, By that time, it was already made.