I think most people haven't got a clue about confidentiality. We used to have an Archbishop who thought that everything could be called 'confidential'.
He used to label his monthly letter to clergy "Confidential"; one of these contained the number of monks and nuns in the Anglican Communion. So, I have never revealed that piece of information to anyone, and will go to my death bed before I betray that confidence.
Today the third S Clark went to one of our chatty GPs (he drives us to distraction with hius endless chatter, just give us drugs and let us go!). Any way he starts chatting to Ms S abotu her particular issue and then starts talking about a particular family who he saw once abotu a certain issue...half way through the conversation S realises that the particular family he is alluding to is us!
Stupid goose.
It's all well and good to be 'hypothetcial' and 'confidential' but in a small town like this people can put two and two together.
Doctors (and Archbishops) should do better!
5 comments:
Would it be better for Abps and Drs to blog it ~ pssbly annmsly ?
With all due respect, the issue is not about the commentator making commentary anonymously ....rather the reverse.
I would have thought if you choose to comment on someone or something you should at least make your identification known, at least then there is the possibility of ongoing dialogue.
Anonymous comments may come (for all one knows) from an Adolf Hitler, or a Mother Teresa and you have no way of knowing which.
Yet knowing whether the commentator is devil or angel does make some difference to what that comment might mean or how it might be received.
'Getting it' vs 'getting away with it'. It seem that the first S Clark didn't 'get it', viz that those frustrated by constraints of confidentiality could consider 'blogging' which enables one to publish to the world what one wants to while having the ability to unilaterally block responses.
Complaint about anonymity would be credible if coming from those to whom it pertains; but no doubt not everyone will 'get that'.
Perhaps Professor Higgins 'got it' when he said "The French don't mind what they do as long as they pronounce it correctly." Could this be a lateral inversion of ysircopyh which is not literally true?
I actually don't 'get' what you are saying!
Surprise surprise!
Post a Comment