Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday September 03 2015, @12:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the must-not-have-used-gmail dept.

The BBC News reports that:

The 56 Dean Street clinic in London's Soho sent out the names and email addresses of 780 patients when a newsletter was issued to people who attend the clinic. Patients were supposed to be blind-copied into the email but instead details were sent as a group email.

From an interview with one patient:

One man, a 40-year-old public sector worker, has been HIV positive for 13 years and has been using the Dean Street clinic for five. He said: "I felt sick when I realised what had happened. I first saw the email at work but ignored it as I was busy. I then looked at it when I was on the way home from work. I couldn't breathe. I'm concerned who will get this information. If it ends up in the hands of the wrong people, such as hate groups, it could be dynamite."

Further:

Fellow patient James ... said: "I was travelling back from the pride parade in Manchester on Monday when I received this email. I couldn't believe it when I got it and I've been full of worry since. I am not ready to disclose my HIV status to my wider friends or family. I fear now that I have no choice."

Finally, a friend informs me that a breach of privacy at another clinic may be widely reported within the next few days.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 03 2015, @05:11PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 03 2015, @05:11PM (#231861)

    Civilian HIV testing is really strange with privacy. They won't tell you results over the phone, won't send you results in the mail, won't have someone random meet you at the clinic to tell you. They are overly-serious and it takes a lot of time. You have to have an appointment to learn your results and it has to be a councilor or something. I had five tests while in the US Army and two as a civilian. The army one was the better way. You get a whole collection of diagnostic tests performed for one blood draw. If there is anything you need to know then you'll get a piece of paper explaining what's up and how to proceed. This was done annually. I'll bet there are so many civilians (maybe even me!) walking around with issues they don't know about (HIV) and will never get tested for. There just isn't a good mechanism to change that right now.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @06:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @06:39PM (#231892)

    > Civilian HIV testing is really strange with privacy.

    That's because it isn't about privacy. You even inadvertently hit on it when you said they require a "councilor or something" - it is about making sure that the patient has the best possible options open to them if they need it. Anyone who is concerned enough to seek out a test isn't going to be put off from testing by a requirement that they come in for a full explanation of the results. Anyone who just casually wants to know and is getting tested because they happen to be in their doctor's office can wait until whenever is most convenient to get the results because they are much lower risk.

    There is no 'perfect' course of action with respect to HIV testing, so the best they can do is come up with an approach that improves outcomes the most.

    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:06PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:06PM (#231900)

      How does forcing you to meet with a councilor give you the best possible options? That is literally a restriction on your options. What if you wanted to opt for not speaking to anyone about it? You could also know for a fact that you are positive but your job requires annual testing (like the US Army). Making you come in to verify an unchangeable result is sub-optimal.

      But you are right about it not being about privacy, i can agree with you there. It's about some sort of "we know what is best for you" thing veiled as protecting your privacy : )

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:19PM (#231905)

        > How does forcing you to meet with a councilor give you the best possible options? That is literally a restriction on your options

        Options for dealing with it.

        You sound like one of those people who thinks the GPL is a fraud since you aren't free to remove the GPL from the code.

        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:34PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:34PM (#231916)

          Lol, looking mature there, AC : ) You are advocating for a mandatory talk about options to deal with HIV, whether you are positive or not. Would you settle for a note that comes in the mail with your results that gave you a phone number to call if you wanted to discuss options?

          If i am wrong, it isn't for the reason you are arguing. HIV testing in the US is too complicated to the point that nobody does it unless forced to. Also, i am open to discussing the GPL with you but not when you use it to derail an argument : )

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:41PM (#231922)

            > Lol, looking mature there, AC : )

            Really? What exactly in that post do you consider immature? Drawing the parallel between two forms of willful ignorance?

            > You are advocating for a mandatory talk about options to deal with HIV, whether you are positive or not.

            Yes. I am. Because treating negatives any different is a way to signal positives that they are positive without getting the counseling and is thus self-defeating.

            > Would you settle for a note that comes in the mail with your results that gave you a phone number to call if you wanted to discuss options?

            No. Because that is not how real people work. Robots, sure. But regular people, just giving them a phone number which they will avoid calling because they are in denial is not helpful.

            > If i am wrong, it isn't for the reason you are arguing.

            thanks for clearing that up, the maturity of your argument is indisputable.

            • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:38PM

              by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:38PM (#231953)

              What exactly in that post do you consider immature? Drawing the parallel between two forms of willful ignorance?

              Accusing me of being someone who thinks "the GPL is a fraud" is intended to derail the conversation and attack me at the same time. Pretending you were just drawing parallels between to very dissimilar things is silly.

              Yes. I am. Because treating negatives any different is a way to signal positives that they are positive without getting the counseling and is thus self-defeating.

              That is an argument i think you could win. I will defer to current civilian practices of notifying people of cancer and other "important" life changing diagnoses. I have personally received the "You have cancer" talk and it was in person, so there is that.

              No. Because that is not how real people work. Robots, sure. But regular people, just giving them a phone number which they will avoid calling because they are in denial is not helpful.

              I think that is weak because every carton of cigarettes says it will kill you and people still do it. Being notified in person versus reading it in a letter will result in the same level of denial.

              the maturity of your argument is indisputable.

              I'm glad we're finally agreeing on something : )

              --
              SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:46PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:46PM (#231958)

                > Pretending you were just drawing parallels between to very dissimilar things is silly.

                Whether you think it was an attack or not, your restatement of my intention as being to refer to dissimilar things is by far the most immature thing in this thread.

                > I think that is weak because every carton of cigarettes says it will kill you and people still do it.
                > Being notified in person versus reading it in a letter will result in the same level of denial.

                What?
                (A) Buying a pack of cigarettes is nothing even remotely like receiving a medical diagnosis.
                (B) Sitting face to face with a person who is trained to mitigate denial is nothing like receiving a letter.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @12:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @12:13AM (#232044)

      Put the person in a room that includes whatever they may want...

      a lawyer for writing a will
      professional-grade fireworks in case you need to celebrate
      a 12-gauge magnum loaded with 00 buck shot in case you want to kill yourself or others
      enough heroin to put down a blue whale
      a low-latency gigabit connection for posting to facebook, youtube, and soylentnews