Care homes/security cameras.

[margaret*e]

Invasion of privacy or a neccesity in exposing neglect and cruelty?.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31424424

"Decisions about using surveillance are extremely difficult - there is always a balance to be struck between protecting people and respecting their right to privacy - but this information will help families to the make the right choice for them."

But Nadra Ahmed, of the National Care Association, which represents providers, said it was "disappointing" that the guidance had been produced.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

It's not the resident that's under survellance, it's those not doing their job.

On the news not long ago was a report of a poor resident calling for help for 2½ hours and the neglect was only brought to book because the family had installed a covert camera.

---

. . . . it is the resident that is being videoed - as far as we know without their consent.

Unless rules are put into place regarding covert surveillance to ensure that the proper permissions have been obtained then such activities should be a criminal offence.  In exactly the same way as if I put a camera in your bedroom without your knowledge.

If relatives want to install covert cameras then let them put their case before a judge who can ensure that the residents rights are not being infringed.

As regards the case you mention an overt CCTV camera would have been just as effective - maybe more so as help might have arrived more quickly.

[cee-dee]

Ah-ha, we're back to consent again? What if the resident is incapable of giving consent?

In a perfect World (!!) cameras wouldn't be necessary. People should do their job properly and in many cases they're not thereby failing those who trust (!!) and depend on them.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Ah-ha, we're back to consent again? What if the resident is incapable of giving consent?

In a perfect World (!!) cameras wouldn't be necessary. People should do their job properly and in many cases they're not thereby failing those who trust (!!) and depend on them.

---

More of a reason for an independent judge to decide in such a case.

What is wrong with what many careworkers want? - overtly displayed CCTV in 'open' areas of the home and in private areas with the consent of residents?  Why the obsession with hidden cameras?

Such a system would offer protection to both residents and staff.

[cee-dee]

The people who're mostly "at risk" are those who're not in "open" areas. "Abuse" and/or neglect happens in areas where no-one can see except those actually involved.

As with other types of whistleblowing, "retribution" of one sort or another often follows so complaints or the "sudden" appearance of an overt camera would lead to more surrepticious forms of abuse/neglect.

[bankhaunter]

I would suggest that for some elderly people whilst they may seem compos mentis in most aspects of their daily life, they would react very badly if they knew there was a camera in their room, no matter how it was explained to them it for for their own good.

My ex MIL for example long before going into a care home, could not be dissuaded that she wasn't being watched through the television and I don't think my mother would have been any different when she got to the stage where she wouldn't have been able to effectively protest at bad treatment.

More of a reason for an independent judge to decide in such a case.

I don't think for one moment your concerns are unwarranted but I do wonder what sort of evidence would be needed as at that stage you would only have suspicions, many signs of abuse may only be apparent to someone who knew the person well, meaning little to others.

[cee-dee]

You've upstaged the next point I was going to make to creeky.

"Your honour, I'd like a covert camera in the room occupied by my elderly aunt aged 94 because I suspect she is being treated badly and neglected at her care home and the reason for this is..........."

"What hard evidence do you have to support your suspicions?"

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

I would suggest that for some elderly people whilst they may seem compos mentis in most aspects of their daily life, they would react very badly if they knew there was a camera in their room, no matter how it was explained to them it for for their own good.

My ex MIL for example long before going into a care home, could not be dissuaded that she wasn't being watched through the television and I don't think my mother would have been any different when she got to the stage where she wouldn't have been able to effectively protest at bad treatment.

More of a reason for an independent judge to decide in such a case.

I don't think for one moment your concerns are unwarranted but I do wonder what sort of evidence would be needed as at that stage you would only have suspicions, many signs of abuse may only be apparent to someone who knew the person well, meaning little to others.

---

So your ex MIL would not want a camera in her room - there are those who "would react very badly if they knew there was a camera in their room, no matter how it was explained to them it for for their own good"

What right has anyone to go against those wishes and install cameras anyway? - without at least some form of independent oversight my opinion would be that nobody has the right to do so!

Judges grant police the right to perform surveillance operations on grounds of reasonable suspicion - there is no reason that requests for secret surveillance of those in care could not be similarly treated.

If it's not possible to install overt CCTV because the 'resident' would object then I don't see that as any justification for installing a camera without their knowledge - quite the contrary!

[cee-dee]

Would a judge take any notice of a lay person who claimed to have "reasonable suspicon"? I think not!

How would they bring it to the notice of such a judge and over what time scale?

[cee-dee]

Bank, your ex-MIL might not have been far wrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31296188

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Would a judge take any notice of a lay person who claimed to have "reasonable suspicon"? I think not!

How would they bring it to the notice of such a judge and over what time scale?

---

Such a system would have to be put in place - all sorts of ways it could work. 

If it's OK to surreptitiously install covert cameras in the case of the elderly, what about for the mentally impaired or in the rooms of children's homes

The current situation is just not acceptable in my opinion.

Would you support the right of care workers installing covert cameras in resident's rooms without their knowledge to protect them from false allegations - what about in the rooms of children care homes? - Such actions I imagine would cause a great ruckus.

[bankhaunter]

What right has anyone to go against those wishes and install cameras anyway? - without at least some form of independent oversight my opinion would be that nobody has the right to do so!

It may depend on the reason for those wishes.

A daughter may suspect that her mother is being ill treated but the mother is absolutely sure that all cameras are satanic devices which will steal her soul while she sleeps.

If and when dementia sets in totally irrational thoughts can appear and sometimes elderly people do need protection against themselves much as children do.

With my mother I had to decide at one point whether or not she had got to the stage for me to give permission for her to receive help if she had an accident during the night rather than leaving her to sort herself out.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

What right has anyone to go against those wishes and install cameras anyway? - without at least some form of independent oversight my opinion would be that nobody has the right to do so!

It may depend on the reason for those wishes.

A daughter may suspect that her mother is being ill treated but the mother is absolutely sure that all cameras are satanic devices which will steal her soul while she sleeps.

If and when dementia sets in totally irrational thoughts can appear and sometimes elderly people do need protection against themselves much as children do.

With my mother I had to decide at one point whether or not she had got to the stage for me to give permission for her to receive help if she had an accident during the night rather than leaving her to sort herself out.

---

I understand what you are saying but who decides at which point a refusal to allow a hidden camera becomes an irrational one - that is why I said there should be some oversight by an independent person.

Where do you draw the line? - would you support the installation of hidden cameras in teenager's rooms without their knowledge nor consent?  What about the mentally impaired?

As it is, hidden cameras in the workplace, (which is what care homes are), are in breach of the Data Protection Act unless employees are informed that they may be installed. 

[fallen-archie]

I wonder if the care home industry should offer to use cctv if clients and their families felt there was a need, staff would know that there was a chance of crv being used which in itself would be a deterrent. Any care home responsibly run ought to be able to provide reassurance to its customers.

[astrologica]

Okay....it may not be the perfect solution, or as dignified as one would like, but where is the dignity in having strangers swear at you, manhandle you, and treat you cruelly. The families of these poor patients are paying good money, sometimes their life savings, to have their loved one looked after. It must break their hearts to know that they have been paying for them to be abused. Bring on the cameras.

[fallen-archie]

Quite so, we need the assurance of a deterrent, it just needs formatting in an appropriate manner.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@astrologica wrote:
Okay....it may not be the perfect solution, or as dignified as one would like, but where is the dignity in having strangers swear at you, manhandle you, and treat you cruelly. The families of these poor patients are paying good money, sometimes their life savings, to have their loved one looked after. It must break their hearts to know that they have been paying for them to be abused. Bring on the cameras.

---

So why do the cameras need to be covert - why not have them openly on display - surely better to deter abuse than record it.

[cee-dee]

Because those who needed deterring would persist in that form of behaviour where they couldn't be seen and not found out.

[astrologica]

I didn't say they needed to be covert....they shouldn't be covert. They should be on display so that everyone knows they are there...like speed cameras.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Because those who needed deterring would persist in that form of behaviour where they couldn't be seen and not found out.

---

I accept that there may possibly be a tiny number of individuals who have gone into the job with sadistic tendencies and would possibly seek opportunities to abuse residents purely for the pleasure derived from doing so.

The majority of cases that have come to light don't however fit into this category - rather it is a matter of negligence, (ignoring someone in need), lack of concern, anger, incompetence etc.  All instances of neglect that would either be deterred by overt cameras or recorded for action to be taken.

[cee-dee]

If you're saying they were momentary "lapses", those people would still have done it and if there were overt cameras would probably have either made excuses or tried to "cover it up", the cameras wouldn't have stopped them.