A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
about the situation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-verte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105

The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.

How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
good reason to take these pictures?

--
Rhino

On 10/11/2022 6:17 AM, Rhino wrote:
> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
> about the situation.
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-verte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
>
> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
>
> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
> good reason to take these pictures?

I heard it takes a lot of balls to do that.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
> about the situation.
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-verte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
>
> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
>
> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
> good reason to take these pictures?
>

The thing that mystifies me most is why the hell they called the family and
told them what they did especially while withholding further information.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2022-10-11 9:45 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
>> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
>> about the situation.
>>
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-verte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
>>
>> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
>> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
>>
>> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
>> good reason to take these pictures?
>>
>
> The thing that mystifies me most is why the hell they called the family and
> told them what they did especially while withholding further information.
>
I'm guessing the hospital's lawyer(s) told them that admitting to what
happened was somehow "better" legally than having the family find out
some other way. Maybe they avoid a lawsuit for negligence if they admit
it before the family found out on its own.

As for not giving more information about what the hospital did, they've
played the confidentiality card so I expect that the offending employee
could sue them if he/she was named publicly so they've dealt with the
matter in-house, which could mean anything from a reprimand/wrist-slap
to outright dismissal depending on how valuable they felt the employee
to be.

--
Rhino

In article <ti3te0$147h8$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On 2022-10-11 9:45 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
> >> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
> >> about the situation.
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-ve
> >> rte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
> >>
> >> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
> >> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
> >>
> >> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
> >> good reason to take these pictures?
> >>
> >
> > The thing that mystifies me most is why the hell they called the family and
> > told them what they did especially while withholding further information.
> >
> I'm guessing the hospital's lawyer(s) told them that admitting to what
> happened was somehow "better" legally than having the family find out
> some other way. Maybe they avoid a lawsuit for negligence if they admit
> it before the family found out on its own.
>
> As for not giving more information about what the hospital did, they've
> played the confidentiality card so I expect that the offending employee
> could sue them if he/she was named publicly so they've dealt with the
> matter in-house, which could mean anything from a reprimand/wrist-slap
> to outright dismissal depending on how valuable they felt the employee
> to be.

I was the clerk in an ICU about fifty years ago. Surgeons routinely
took post-op pictures of their work if they were teachers, or if they
were writing a textbook. Some of the doctors would toss off an order
to me to get the patient to sign a release. I never did because it
wasn't my job, and I didn't have any releases on hand anyway.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <ti3te0$147h8$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-10-11 9:45 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
>>>> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
>>>> about the situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-ve
>>>> rte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
>>>>
>>>> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
>>>> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
>>>>
>>>> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
>>>> good reason to take these pictures?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The thing that mystifies me most is why the hell they called the family and
>>> told them what they did especially while withholding further information.
>>>
>> I'm guessing the hospital's lawyer(s) told them that admitting to what
>> happened was somehow "better" legally than having the family find out
>> some other way. Maybe they avoid a lawsuit for negligence if they admit
>> it before the family found out on its own.
>>
>> As for not giving more information about what the hospital did, they've
>> played the confidentiality card so I expect that the offending employee
>> could sue them if he/she was named publicly so they've dealt with the
>> matter in-house, which could mean anything from a reprimand/wrist-slap
>> to outright dismissal depending on how valuable they felt the employee
>> to be.
>
>
> I was the clerk in an ICU about fifty years ago. Surgeons routinely
> took post-op pictures of their work if they were teachers, or if they
> were writing a textbook. Some of the doctors would toss off an order
> to me to get the patient to sign a release. I never did because it
> wasn't my job, and I didn't have any releases on hand anyway.
>

Yeah, I can imagine there are a lot of legitimate reasons to take pictures
of anatomy whether it’s had a procedure or not. But the whole thing is
still weird.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2022-10-11 10:18 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <ti3te0$147h8$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-10-11 9:45 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
>>>> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
>>>> about the situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-ve
>>>> rte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
>>>>
>>>> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
>>>> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
>>>>
>>>> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
>>>> good reason to take these pictures?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The thing that mystifies me most is why the hell they called the family and
>>> told them what they did especially while withholding further information.
>>>
>> I'm guessing the hospital's lawyer(s) told them that admitting to what
>> happened was somehow "better" legally than having the family find out
>> some other way. Maybe they avoid a lawsuit for negligence if they admit
>> it before the family found out on its own.
>>
>> As for not giving more information about what the hospital did, they've
>> played the confidentiality card so I expect that the offending employee
>> could sue them if he/she was named publicly so they've dealt with the
>> matter in-house, which could mean anything from a reprimand/wrist-slap
>> to outright dismissal depending on how valuable they felt the employee
>> to be.
>
>
> I was the clerk in an ICU about fifty years ago. Surgeons routinely
> took post-op pictures of their work if they were teachers, or if they
> were writing a textbook. Some of the doctors would toss off an order
> to me to get the patient to sign a release. I never did because it
> wasn't my job, and I didn't have any releases on hand anyway.

That might be a reasonable ground for the picture-taking if the patient
had just undergone a surgery of (or affecting) his genitals but this
patient had Huntingdon's, a brain disorder, and there's no indication
that he had any surgery. I'm not a doctor but I'm having trouble
believing that a surgery for Huntingdon's - if there is such a surgery
(I am under the impression that there is nothing to be done about
Huntingdon's) - would affect his genitals. Of course I could be wrong
about surgeries for Huntingdon's or their effects on genitalia.

Other than that, your theory makes sense for the reticence of the
hospital in disclosing what they did about the picture-taker: they're
protecting a surgeon whose career might otherwise be in jeopardy and who
they might have trouble replacing.

I wonder if it might be something as simple as a prank gone wrong?
Somebody put a naive young newcomer up to taking the pictures claiming
that one of the doctors needed it but that someone fairly important was
ultimately responsible (despite having not suggested it or approved of
it) and the hospital wanted to save that person's ass?

--
Rhino

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:17:29 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
>genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
>about the situation.
>
>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-verte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
>
>The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
>understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
>
>How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
>good reason to take these pictures?

Truly a very good question.

I remember my 17 year old son's reaction when an older relative
(suffering from dementia) exposed himself (nobody but family present
mercifully) and like you say one has to wonder why anybody thought
such a photograph was a good thing.

Even by Newfoundland standards. (For non-Canadians, Newfies tend to
get the kind of jokes Okies or Alabamans get)

In article <ti434e$14mkj$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On 2022-10-11 10:18 AM, A Friend wrote:
> > In article <ti3te0$147h8$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
> > <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-10-11 9:45 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
> >>>> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
> >>>> about the situation.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-
> >>>> ve
> >>>> rte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
> >>>>
> >>>> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
> >>>> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
> >>>>
> >>>> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
> >>>> good reason to take these pictures?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The thing that mystifies me most is why the hell they called the family
> >>> and
> >>> told them what they did especially while withholding further information.
> >>>
> >> I'm guessing the hospital's lawyer(s) told them that admitting to what
> >> happened was somehow "better" legally than having the family find out
> >> some other way. Maybe they avoid a lawsuit for negligence if they admit
> >> it before the family found out on its own.
> >>
> >> As for not giving more information about what the hospital did, they've
> >> played the confidentiality card so I expect that the offending employee
> >> could sue them if he/she was named publicly so they've dealt with the
> >> matter in-house, which could mean anything from a reprimand/wrist-slap
> >> to outright dismissal depending on how valuable they felt the employee
> >> to be.
> >
> >
> > I was the clerk in an ICU about fifty years ago. Surgeons routinely
> > took post-op pictures of their work if they were teachers, or if they
> > were writing a textbook. Some of the doctors would toss off an order
> > to me to get the patient to sign a release. I never did because it
> > wasn't my job, and I didn't have any releases on hand anyway.
>
> That might be a reasonable ground for the picture-taking if the patient
> had just undergone a surgery of (or affecting) his genitals but this
> patient had Huntingdon's, a brain disorder, and there's no indication
> that he had any surgery. I'm not a doctor but I'm having trouble
> believing that a surgery for Huntingdon's - if there is such a surgery
> (I am under the impression that there is nothing to be done about
> Huntingdon's) - would affect his genitals. Of course I could be wrong
> about surgeries for Huntingdon's or their effects on genitalia.
>
> Other than that, your theory makes sense for the reticence of the
> hospital in disclosing what they did about the picture-taker: they're
> protecting a surgeon whose career might otherwise be in jeopardy and who
> they might have trouble replacing.
>
> I wonder if it might be something as simple as a prank gone wrong?
> Somebody put a naive young newcomer up to taking the pictures claiming
> that one of the doctors needed it but that someone fairly important was
> ultimately responsible (despite having not suggested it or approved of
> it) and the hospital wanted to save that person's ass?

I've never heard of someone pranking a person like that, especially at
the expense of a patient. A couple of the doctors were truly
dickheads, but I never witnessed abuse of that sort.

On 2022-10-11 2:48 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <ti434e$14mkj$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-10-11 10:18 AM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <ti3te0$147h8$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-10-11 9:45 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
>>>>>> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
>>>>>> about the situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-
>>>>>> ve
>>>>>> rte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
>>>>>> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
>>>>>> good reason to take these pictures?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing that mystifies me most is why the hell they called the family
>>>>> and
>>>>> told them what they did especially while withholding further information.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing the hospital's lawyer(s) told them that admitting to what
>>>> happened was somehow "better" legally than having the family find out
>>>> some other way. Maybe they avoid a lawsuit for negligence if they admit
>>>> it before the family found out on its own.
>>>>
>>>> As for not giving more information about what the hospital did, they've
>>>> played the confidentiality card so I expect that the offending employee
>>>> could sue them if he/she was named publicly so they've dealt with the
>>>> matter in-house, which could mean anything from a reprimand/wrist-slap
>>>> to outright dismissal depending on how valuable they felt the employee
>>>> to be.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was the clerk in an ICU about fifty years ago. Surgeons routinely
>>> took post-op pictures of their work if they were teachers, or if they
>>> were writing a textbook. Some of the doctors would toss off an order
>>> to me to get the patient to sign a release. I never did because it
>>> wasn't my job, and I didn't have any releases on hand anyway.
>>
>> That might be a reasonable ground for the picture-taking if the patient
>> had just undergone a surgery of (or affecting) his genitals but this
>> patient had Huntingdon's, a brain disorder, and there's no indication
>> that he had any surgery. I'm not a doctor but I'm having trouble
>> believing that a surgery for Huntingdon's - if there is such a surgery
>> (I am under the impression that there is nothing to be done about
>> Huntingdon's) - would affect his genitals. Of course I could be wrong
>> about surgeries for Huntingdon's or their effects on genitalia.
>>
>> Other than that, your theory makes sense for the reticence of the
>> hospital in disclosing what they did about the picture-taker: they're
>> protecting a surgeon whose career might otherwise be in jeopardy and who
>> they might have trouble replacing.
>>
>> I wonder if it might be something as simple as a prank gone wrong?
>> Somebody put a naive young newcomer up to taking the pictures claiming
>> that one of the doctors needed it but that someone fairly important was
>> ultimately responsible (despite having not suggested it or approved of
>> it) and the hospital wanted to save that person's ass?
>
>
> I've never heard of someone pranking a person like that, especially at
> the expense of a patient. A couple of the doctors were truly
> dickheads, but I never witnessed abuse of that sort.

Well, it's been 50 years since you worked in a hospital. A whole lot of
other things have changed in 50 years so the sort of pranks hospital
staff do might have changed too. Heck, I remember when there were two
just two genders and no one could even imagine any other possibility.
That's obviously changed enormously so why not hospital decorum?

Or maybe it was some kind of staff member who is simply a pervert of
some kind. Maybe he'd been caught at it before, got warned not to do it
again, and then did it again anyway and got fired. Maybe the hospital is
staying quiet because they don't want to admit that he had previously
gotten into trouble but still kept his job for fear that they will be
sued for being too lax with this individual.

I'm speculating here, just as you were, but in the absence of any
further information, that's pretty much all we can do.

--
Rhino

On 10/11/2022 11:41 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:17:29 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> A hospital in Newfoundland has taken a picture (or pictures) of the
>> genitals of a helpless patient but refuses to explain what it has done
>> about the situation.
>>
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/long-term-care-baie-verte-inappropriate-photos-1.6610105
>>
>> The man whose genitals were photographed appears to be too far gone to
>> understand what happened but his family is understandably furious.
>>
>> How the hell did anyone manage to convince themselves that there was a
>> good reason to take these pictures?
>
> Truly a very good question.
>
> I remember my 17 year old son's reaction when an older relative
> (suffering from dementia) exposed himself (nobody but family present
> mercifully) and like you say one has to wonder why anybody thought
> such a photograph was a good thing.
>
> Even by Newfoundland standards. (For non-Canadians, Newfies tend to
> get the kind of jokes Okies or Alabamans get)
>
Or Arkies.