Darwin award nomination - ethical dilemna

[mr friendly guy]

Today for some reason or another I ended up discussing with colleagues about the Darwin awards.

Before long I ended up mentioning a patient (who later died) which was presented at a doctors meeting (ie I didn't personally see this patient) which deserves an honourable mention, since he had already reproduced. Before long all three of us agreed that this man deserves an honourable mention in the Darwins.

The ethical dilemna lies in whether this can be seen to violate patient's confidentiality, so at this point I won't mention too much more about the case. Lets just say when the case was presented a senior doctor asked whether this counts as "a Darwinian thing", to which the reply was "he has already reproduced" and the counter reply was "his son has half his genes, and witnessed what his dad did".

My colleague pointed out that you are not using the patients real name (not that I remember it), and usually the Darwin awards tend not to mention people's names, just describes what happened so it most probably isn't violating confidentiality.

The other thing to consider is, in the unlikely event the family reads the Darwin awards and finds out about it, they most probably won't be too pleased. Sometimes the Darwin awards do try to verify the story, and if I mention the name of the hospital I work at, it might (however unlikely) be traced back to me.

So in summary, does this violate patient's confidentiality, and I being paranoid here? Because this man truly deserves an honourable mention.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see how it can be a confidentiality issue if the name of the patient is not revealed, unless the patient is famous or otherwise easily tracked down from details you unnecessarily provide. For example, if Angelina Jolie's doctor started talking about a certain patient who happens to be a famous movie actress, that would be pretty much the same thing as saying her name. But I doubt that's the case here; it would take quite a bit of effort to track down the patient's name unless the hospital just gives out that kind of information upon request, in which case it's already not private.

[Lord Woodlouse]

It violates the spirit of the patient confidentiality thing I think, but I doubt anyone could nail you on it. But really is it all that important? The Darwin Awards are mostly just an amusing sideshow and if you have any doubts about doing it (for either ethical or legal fears) you're probably best off simply not doing it, it's not like people have an obligation and duty to submit the things.

[Ted C]

The ethical dilemna lies in whether this can be seen to violate patient's confidentiality.

I can give you the HIPAA-compliant answer, which is that you are OK if you don't share information that could be used to uniquely identify the patient in the story.

If you give the name of the hospital and a description of the patient's condition, it might be possible to identify the patient. If you just discuss the event without giving any indication where it occurred, I don't think it would be possible to identify the person as a result of your actions.

It would be similar to the sort of "sanitized" information published in medical studies, which describe the conditions of various patients and their reactions to the tests without sharing any personally identifiable details.

[Broomstick]

Don't reveal the specific name, location, or hospital.

Yes, there's a chance the family could read it. If it's a highly specific injury/stupidity then they might identify their loved one from the story, but that doesn't mean anyone else will.

And now I'm dying of couriosity - what the hell did this guy do?

[mr friendly guy]

Ok, I plan to submit it and just mention that it occurred in Western Australia, Australia.

And now I'm dying of couriosity - what the hell did this guy do?

Man shoots himself in the head while teaching gun safety to kid

Basically the story goes that he demonstrating how to use a firearm to his child (with apparently a stolen fire arm which his son stole).

Now I don't know much about guns, but he apparently loaded the bullet in one of the chambers of the guns, in what he thought was the fourth chamber. He put the gun to his head and pressed the trigger. Nothing happened. He told his son that the bullet will discharged after he has pressed 3 more times, but fortunately I know how to count.

On the second time, the bullet fired blowing a hole through his skull. Presumably the chambers spun the other way, so it was really the second chamber he had loaded up. He was rushed to hospital but eventually died in the Intensive Care Unit. On another note, the 3 D images of the skull was amazing.

[Shroom Man 777]

...Christ, that takes the fucking cake! Jewsus!

[wolveraptor]

I thought the Darwin Awards thoroughly verified all of their stories. How will they accept yours without dangerously specific information?

[Ted C]

I thought the Darwin Awards thoroughly verified all of their stories. How will they accept yours without dangerously specific information?

Probably by searching for a corroborating newspaper article from Western Australia.

[mr friendly guy]

I thought the Darwin Awards thoroughly verified all of their stories. How will they accept yours without dangerously specific information?

According to their website they do have a category where they are pretty certain (but don't have verification), namely if other people e-mail it in. At least one other person who knows of the case is considering nominating this guy for a Darwin.

[mr friendly guy]

Update. The Darwin awards e-mailed me back.

Hello!

The story you submitted, Man shoots himself in the head, was reviewed
by moderators
and approved for inclusion in the public Slush Pile! It is now
entertaining other readers while awaiting further review by Darwin.
You can check the vote tally and read the moderator comments here: (It
can
take up to one hour for the link to become active.)

<http://DarwinAwards.com/slush/new/pendi ... 33855.html>

Thank you for sharing this tale of stupidity with us.

The link should take you to the article in question.

[Superman]

Don't use the name and there is no violation. The HIPPA laws don't apply to situations, just don't be too specific about any identity details.

[Cao Cao]

That entry looks perfectly fine to me.
And Jebus, what a fucktard.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Okay...

1) It is, technically, eligible for a Darwin Award, not an Honourable Mention, as the person did die. The fact that he reproduced already doesn't matter, according to the rules.

2) I believe the rules also state that a story must be verified by two reliable sources in order to be considered eligible for an award.

As it stands, until there's a newspaper report or two on it, or if the hospital officially releases the information, it will most likely remain a Personal Account, which is simply a plausible tale of stupidity that has yet to be verified.