Put the camera away in hospitals

August 5, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

It’s a moment many parents want to record: the birth of a child. I recently read a story out of Pittsburgh that reports some area hospitals are not allowing people to film deliveries. The story doesn’t really get into the reasons why the hospitals claim parents shouldn’t be allowed to film, but I imagine the arguments are the person filming could get in the way of the medical staff.

One hospital cited doesn’t allow any images – including photographs – until the child is born, unless the father is in the military and stationed overseas.

Could it be that if something goes wrong that could be attributed to the doctors or nurses, the hospital doesn’t want any evidence of it? That’s a theory mentioned in the article.

What do you think – should hospitals be allowed to dictate when you can film such a momentous occasion? Do you believe their motives are to protect themselves and their staff from lawsuits?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Delivery Photos
    These decisions should be left to the Physician
    whose policies either permit, or do not permit,
    since the doctor is responsible for the medical
    care, procedure, complications etc.
  • Freedom
    Let doctors set and say their policy freely and let people freely firethem if they are too chicken too allow recordings.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT