I'd appreciate seeing your blog post Lee… any link to share?
Member has chosen to not make this information public.
I understand. The risk of coercion stems from the imbalance of power in the doctor-patient relationship (the patient is dependent on the doctor) and so the use of power is the factor to be considered. I would presume there are written articles on this issue – you might check the American Psychological Association ethical code or other books on Ethics of consent. My initial reaction to your question is that photos are less intrusive than videos (although both will reveal their identities), but yes, coercion may be a factor. Again, providing clients/patients with time and distance from the medical situations are one way to mitigate the influence of those requesting the video/image. Others are possible. It is a complicated issue – there is no 'one size fits all' in it, but there are central principles that need to be considered. As an option, you could ask for consultations from a bioethicist or a psychologist involved in the treatment team (eg., oncology unit).
I can appreciate that your question and marketing work. As a Health Psychologist, I agree with the feedback you received from the Psychologist mentioned in your post, who is raising the issue of ethics. Consent to the video needs to be freely given (eg., free of coercion). The risk is that a patient who has just had their lives saved would feel undue pressure to say yes, and this is relevant to the traumatization process (and rates of traumatization are expected to be high). Trauma-informed consent procedures can be an option. Better practice would be to allow for time between the making of the video and the patient's consent to release on your website – after they have had time to better understand the meaning of their experience, to recover physically and be less dependent on medical care. You could follow-up 6 months later, provide a copy for them to view and ask for consent – which would increase their level of freedom to say no (and thus, address the coercive aspect).
Further to Eileen's post, I'm concerned about the delays/deferrals of regular health care. I'd be happy to amplify tweets that promote the safety of regular health care to avert unnecessary use of emergency care. @gendlinsmuse is my handle. – link me in if you've developed some more general 'safety in regular care' types of posts.
What a great idea. Too bad the journey seems so uphill right now (and even scary, I could say). I did read a chapter in the National Vaccine Plan (put out by IOM). Date on it is 2009. Not sure if this is helpful, but an entire chapter was devoted to the need to develop vaccine-relevant communication strategies and the relevant stakeholders. I wonder if you might even be able to qualify for some national source of funding, or private source of funding (Gates Foundation, etc) through a strategic public-private partnership.
The health messaging that came out of The Chief Medical Officer of Health in Alberta (Canada) re: their tracing app was very palatable – and seemed to balance the concern for health as well as privacy. I don't live in that province, but I recall wanting to know more about how information was being collected while at the same time protecting privacy (and I also wondered if something like that would come to my province).