By Holly Williams
Elm Staff Writer
In a horrific breach of privacy, many pregnant women had their most vulnerable moments recorded by secret cameras at Sharp Grossmont Hospital in La Mesa, California.
It wasn’t an isolated incident. The management of the hospitals planted cameras in labor and delivery rooms, gathering nearly 7,000 clips of approximately 1,800 women.
These cameras were set up to catch a drug thief and filmed women before, during, and after childbirth — all without their consent. Hysterectomies and post-miscarriage procedures were also filmed. Some were under anesthesia. The women’s faces were clearly visible, and at times they unknowingly undressed in front of the camera.
If these recordings being made in the first place isn’t atrocious enough, the footage was never properly destroyed, and instead stored on computers that weren’t password-protected. These computers have since been replaced by the hospital, but the footage wasn’t wiped. The number of people who could have accessed the recordings, and what they could have done with them, is unknown.
Now, 131 women have joined a lawsuit against Sharp Grossmont Hospital. The lawyers representing the plaintiff expect more will follow.
The lawsuit has revealed information that further casts doubt on whether the hospital’s actions were grossly negligent or malicious. Even after the alleged drug thief, a doctor at the hospital, was exonerated by the footage, the cameras were not removed. The recordings showed him returning the “stolen” medication. The doctor’s lawyer has since claimed his role as a whistleblower for a previous malpractice suit against the hospital spurred management to target him.
This hospital’s investigation into potential theft was done without the support of law enforcement.
Lending credence to this claim is the fact that the hospital terminated an employee after he complained about the presence of cameras and started to cover them up before procedures.
Incidents such as this beg the question: how should technology change our relationship with those we entrust with our lives?
On the other hand, patients are increasingly recording their doctors without permission, either out of fear of wrong-doing (we’ve seen similar actions taken with police officers) or as a point of reference.
At least some of recordings in the medical field are good-faith efforts to accurately remember and follow the doctor’s treatment plan. A family practitioner in Michigan, Dr. Ryan, records audio files with his patient’s consent and uploads them securely for their personal reference.
Instances of patients recording as a pre-emptive tactic to respond to malpractice is more of a grey area. Audio-only recordings guarantee that both the patient and doctor remember treatment plans without potentially exploitative video — especially when that video is the retributive tool of one hospital. Without the informed consent of both parties, however, the doctor-patient relationship could very well deteriorate.
There’s nothing ethically wrong with a recording that both subjects consent to, but these 1,800 women did not consent. These 1,800 individuals had their rights violated in a place where they assumed they would be granted privacy and care. The justice system owes them restitution, as well as steps to prevent this from ever happening to another patient.