Kurt was at Resurrection Medical Center in Chicago yesterday, where his father is in rehab after a recent stroke, and he was nearly kicked out because he took a photo of the setting sun out the window from a hallway.
Before even reviewing the picture, I heard a woman yell, “What do you think you’re doing?!” I looked up, seeing an angry looking woman briskly coming down the hall at me.
“Taking a photo of the sun,” I replied.
“You’re in a hospital!” she shrilly declared.
“Yes, obviously.”
“I’ve called security, you stay here!”
Kurt didn’t stay there, but told her his father had been there for 3 weeks now and he was going to go join him at dinner.
And so I did. I joined my father at dinner. Within minutes, someone tapped me on the shoulder. It was a security guard.“Sir, can you come with me?”
“Certainly.”
“Were you taking photos in the hospital?” he asked, seemingly bored.
“Yes, I took a photo out the hallway window in the 3rd floor of the sun.” I showed him the photo.
“Okay, just don’t do it again. Thanks.” It seemed like he was just a guy doing his job so I agreed and went back to sit with my father.
“See, they’re all pinheads,” commented my father.
But that wasn’t the end of it—a hospital official joined them before the dinner was over and “explained” the problem:
He exasperatedly explained to me that I could not take photos anywhere on the hospital grounds because it violated the employees’ rights. I was also told that I was not allowed anywhere but with my father. Failure to comply with these requests would result in being escorted by the still present security guard. At this point, he also demanded my driver’s license as proof of the incident.
Okay, so let’s look at some possible reasons to ban photographs at a hospital:
- to protect the privacy of employees;
- to protect the privacy of patients;
- to prevent situations where someone taking pictures may get in the way of helping the sick and injured;
It seems reasonable that those three needs can be met with a sign posted at every entrance that says something like, “Please do not take photographs of employees or patients. No cameras allowed in hallways or treatment areas.” Hey, and then you could also tell employees to memorize and repeat those two restrictions one time only to offenders, along with “Hospital policy!” at the end. If they spy a repeat offender, they call security. Another problem solved! You’re welcome!
In other words: We get that the hospital wants to protect the privacy of employees and patients, but obviously a simple explanation of the no-photos policy would have sufficed. Bringing two employees to twice interrupt a visitor’s dinner with his father is the kind of overreaction that happens when you equate photographs with terrorism, and cameras with guns.
Kurt writes,
I wanted to point out that I didn’t take a picture of any person, or that I couldn’t possibly know their absurd policy since there was no signage posted anywhere. And if a search of their site is any indication, the only person who is aware of this policy is the the head of security himself.
But he didn’t say anything, because his father is there in rehab and he didn’t want to get kicked out.
We tried contacting Resurrection to find out what their official photo policy was, but we were transferred from the front desk to security, then given a number to guest relations that didn’t work. (The security guy said it was probably closed for the evening.) Nobody we actually spoke with was willing to say anything about a photo policy for visitors.
This writer thinks there’s another reason for all the photo banning currently in vogue: it’s a superstitious attempt to retroactively prevent 9/11 from ever having happened. Letting a stranger shoot a photo has become a symbol of invasion and assault, of scheming and revenge. Or maybe it’s also a fear of Flickr. At any rate, this writer half-seriously suggests maybe earmarking some public funds for a national re-education campaign about the moral neutrality of “Taking Photos.”
“Hospital forbids photos of the sun!” [fiftytwofifty]
(Photos: security guard: Getty; seminar: kerryank)
More From Consumerist
-
When Hospital Systems Acquire Private Practices, We All Pay More For Health Care
-
Medical Debt Collector Banned In Minnesota For Harassing Patients In Emergency Rooms
-
Is Seattle Plastic Bag Ban Actually Leading To More Shoplifting?
-
Philadelphia Restaurant Wants Horse On The Menu Since That’s Going Over So Well In Europe
-
Does It Make Sense To Ban Pit Bulls When Most People Can’t Even Identify One?
Photographer’s Bill of Rights.
More geared I believe towards public sidewalks and the like, but maybe handy. I have it in my camera bag but never needed it.
[www.krages.com]
How about not being a crappy industry wrought with abuse that has been treating people like crap forever! There is a reason why there is government regulation, and it is because these industries abuse people when there isn’t any regulation. Instead of blaming the customer and badgering them for simple photos, put your own damn house in order!
People get it in their head that users of the hosiptal are all a bunch of people ready to sue at a moments notice when in reality, they are sick people trying to get well. It is bad for them that the health care industry has become Wal-Martized. And we are all being treated by the lowest bidder on everything.
Stop blaming the lawyers and the government and look no further then your freindly health insurance company who has rigged the system to be as profitable and as patient unfriendly as possible.
Sure, it’s an overreaction on the hospital’s part, but what’s the big deal of following a guideline of not taking photos in a hospital … no matter how ridiculous the guideline may be.
Obviously, in this situation, the man didn’t know the rule … but now that he does, I don’t see it as a big deal. Just don’t take photos in the hospital, it’s not a situation that needs to be blown out of proportion.
If your life doesn’t seem fulfilled unless you have the ability to take photos of the sun from a hospital hallway, you may have some issues.
Oh, and yes, I also believe that if this is a policy an exception should and would be made for new Mothers.
Perhaps if “consumer advocates” weren’t busily suing the health care system into insolvency I’d be a bit more sympathetic.
@MercuryPDX: Since photography is generally accepted as some people have noted, howsabout one sign at each hospital entrance saying “Photography prohibited except where posted”? That’s what many places do for cell phone usage.
@Neecy: Try filming a birth like you used to be able to. Not gonna happen. This rule prevents the documenting of evidence for use in a malpractice suit.
My two cents: A lot of hospitals DO have “No cameras allowed” signs, but the exception is usually if you are visiting someone, you let the nurse know you have a camera and you can take pictures in the room you are visiting. This is why you can take photos and videos of births, but if the mother gets wheeled away to the OR, you can follow but the camera can’t. This person was taking photos while in the hallway, had he taken a photo in his father’s room there wouldn’t be much of an issue. I’m pretty sure the overreaction goes to the writer: how much more upset would he be if he found videos of his father struggling through rehab posted on Youtube?
It’s for the confidentiality and safety of the patient mostly, then protection of healthcare workers. Nurses like to just know the facts, not the whole, elaborate process that goes into making the fact. The woman (most likely a nurse, as they would be most vocal in this situation) knows that cameras are not allowed, and that is the policy; memorizing the entire clause would be pointless as she is not a lawyer.
@Jcakes: “lawyers are in charge of videotaping child birth, ensuring that some third party gets to make a “boatload” of money off of parents. Coached, no less.”
They don’t let hospital photographers videotape — they come in afterwards and take stills for you. And I was expressing SARCASM … the convenience and quality is how they sell it to parents to make it seem like a GOOD thing that parents aren’t allowed to take pictures.
This is from a PDF in regards to Photographers Rights.
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.
To read more of this please follow this link:
[www.krages.com]
Since the hospital is private property, in theory they do have the right to limit photography but since the hospital is open to the public should it be considered a public space?
I truly wish the ACLU would chime in on this and write up a PDF document outlining photographers rights in public.
No less than three times last year I was threatened with arrest for simply taking photos in public spaces:
- On an EL Train (public space and perfectly legal).
- Free symphony in the park (public space and perfectly legal)
- Standing outside a cordoned off space of a movie shoot [I was taking a photo of the lighting rig] (public space and perfectly legal).
Interestingly, after the EL train incident with went to the CTA website and found that photography by the general public is perfectly legal.
[www.transitchicago.com]
I went back the next day with a print of the policy, shoved it in the face of security and waited for an apology – never came. I still see this person nearly everyday and they remember me. I also carry a print of this policy in my camera bag.
Ridiculous. If the hospital wants no pictures to be taken, they need to clearly post it in all areas where cameras might potentially be taken.
That being said, the big hospital near me only bans photos of patients, staff and records. So, if you were walking down the hallway and saw a really cool painting [or a sunset out a window, for that matter] you could photograph that, but not go to random people’s rooms and be all “And this unlucky guy got infected from his girlfriend!”
What do they do when some brand new daddy snaps a shot of his newborn in the nursery? Jeez.
@sarusa:
I agree, they don’t want you to have any evidence if there’s a reason for a lawsuit.
It has been said before that this was a bad overreactions, but with good intent. Anyway, I thought I might add that this reaction is probably due to some post-9/11 paranoia. Did you know, for example, that using a map to try and navigate Chicago is very suspicious:
[www.boingboing.net]
Apparently, Chicago has lost its mind.
It certainly makes sense to ban photography in a hospital. Patients very likely do not want to be photographed in their sick condition, and may not be able to run away from cameras as well as able-bodied sorts. But a No Photography policy has to be made clear by signage. And if the policy is innocently violated, as it was in this case, staff should be courteous–as the security guard was–not angry or vindictive.
@Honus: I think you’ve got it exactly right. It’s true that the nurse or whoever could have used her judgment, but we’re so afraid of lawsuits these days that we just follow the rules to a T. Thanks, idiot McDonald’s coffee-spillng old lady!
@dorkins:
The mcDonalds lady had a valid case. Please read the case before you throw around “idiot McDonalds lady”. The coffee was so hot, when she went to sip it, it literally burned her tongue, thus causing her to spill it because the pain. The coffee proceeded to melt her pantyhose onto her skin and required surgery. Please don’t be so ignorant.
@skagen: She was drinking it in a car and spilled it on herself.
No, it was so hot that it fused her genital tissue to her thigh. Picture that, ladies, gentlemen. Contemplate looking at your lap and realizing with agonized horror that your (scrotum or labia, take your pick) is fused to your thigh. Shrieking, please-gods-kill-me-now agony. Mutilated genitals.
Squirming yet? Good.
McDonald’s was forced to admit documents realizing they were aware of the danger, and did a cost/benefit on this and said, “Wagons, ho!” They used a special process that raised the temperature of their coffee far beyond what you have at home (or Starbucks). McDonald’s didn’t want to put a warning on their Vesuvius-hot drink because it might alarm their customers.
The plaintiff originally sued simply for her overwhelming medical bills, which McDonald’s lawyers snickered at and threw back in grandma’s face. Forcing her to sue them. She wanted to settle but was rebuffed.
The penalty was based on one day (one day) of coffee profits, a method the jury decided was the most fair. Which was adjusted downward somewhat on appeal.
Once they were caught, then spanked, they promptly dropped this super-heating process. Hardly the action of a benign company.
Like many of these radio-show soundbites, once you look at the facts, it turns out to be quite reasonable. You’d find it to be so as well, if it was you (or if you have an ounce of human empathy in your shriveled, stunted, dark soul).
How did this turn to coffee? “Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 – 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee.” That’s what the National Coffee Association says on how hot to make your coffee.
Liebeck had placed her coffee between her legs so she could add suger/creamer/etc from the passenger seat of the vehicle her grandson was driving but had parked so she could do her thing. She spilled it on her cotton sweatpants, suffered third degree to six percent of her skin and substantial burns to sixteen percent. She spent a week in the hospital amounting to $11k, she wanted to settle for $20k but McDonalds rejected it. It was a stupid case, and I felt bad for Liebeck, but not $650k bad. Read up before making yourself look like a fool. [www.overlawyered.com] will help get you started.
Not that I side with McDonald’s either, they spend enough time in court suing anyone with a prefix ‘Mc’, claiming it’s their trademark (hint: it isn’t, only the arches are).
So if your wife/sister/mother/friend/etc. just gave birth and you’re in the recovery room taking pictures of the new born baby and the proud mom, is a security guard going to storm into the room and “escort” you out of the hospital now?
@Joafu: The $650k was for punitive damages. As Trai_Dep said, they knew of the risks, and health/safety regulations prohibiting it, but decided to go with super-high temperatures anyway. From what I understand (as told to me by a lawyer who works with the old lady’s attorney), that location and several others received a lot of business from over-the-road truckers, who wanted their coffee to stay hot a long time.
As a photographer I have run across this problem a few times before, it is not about sunsets from a window, at a minimum it is about the use/control of private property. They do have the right to control their property in anyway they wish and they do not need to post a sign, nor have a reason to do so. The only right a photographer has is to take a picture from a public place like a sidewalk. This includes taking a picture of a private building from that sidewalk. Once I had the police question me about taking a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge from the sidewalk, he tried to have me stop, I pointed out that that I was on public property and finally he left me alone. It is all about ownership rights.
@Trai_Dep: Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I’d just add their economic motivation was to keep the coffee hotter longer for commuters, and that they contemplated the increased # of injuries that would result from the increased temperature (including from people spilling on themselves in the car, since the entire POINT was to sell it to commuters), and decided the cost of being sued for those injuries was more than offset by the increased profits they’d make.
They quite literally set safety against profit and decided profit mattered more.
@stereogirl: That’s why the guard looked at it, the nurse was a bitch and so was whoever else showed up, but maybe they thought he was also taking pictures inside. Lord knows you can’t just pretend to take a picture towards the outside to make it look like you’re just getting scenery then turning around and getting pics of patients and employees.
I know that’s not very realistic, but it could happen. Don’t take pictures of sick strangers in the hospital.
I hope he doesnt fail to show them a receipt when leaving.
I have to side with the hospital here. Almost every hospital I’ve been in the windows are only in patient’s private rooms and, it would appear Kurt probably took the shot from the hallway, through a door or interior window, through a patient room of the sunset. He obviously violated HIPAA/patient confidentiality here, whether or not anyone was in the room/hallway.
BTW, you don’t have the right to take pictures EVERYWHERE. You’re a private property and photography isn’t an inalienable right.
“I was also told that I was not allowed anywhere but with my father.”
That doesn’t sound right,,, he really has a bit more freedom than that I’m sure.
I understand how they could be scared because of 9/11 and HIPPA, but you’re right. They were way out of line.
Also there are some ‘rights’ you don’t have.
When taking pictures from public property, you can take pictures of anything you like.
If you’re going to use them commercially, and there are people in the picture with their faces visible (and recognizable in the picture), you need signed model releases by each one.
When I had a family member at Resurrection Medical Center in Chicago, the staff were incompetent. He had a breathing tube in so he clearly couldn’t talk. When he needed help he was told to page a nurse by pressing a button they gave him, so when a problem came about, he did… A nurse would then come in over an intercom and say “what do you need?” He’d press the button again, and they’d come on saying “sir, stop wasting our time!”
Idiots!
He had NO RIGHT to take a picture of the sun! Think about that statement a few times. Just gets more and more stupid right? Reminds me of when visitors to North Korea take a picture of the Kim Il-Sung monument. You are prohibited from cropping out any part of the statue.
Christ, are you people talking about that mcdonalds hot coffee case again?