Do doctors do live broadcasts to respect patient privacy and wishes?

"It's so common, not just in our hospitals, but in other hospitals as well, but few people have considered the boundaries of live streaming." As a middle-level manager of a well-known hospital in China, Sun Ting (pseudonym) is worried about more and more peers around her investing in live broadcasting, and the newly revised physician law will be officially implemented on March 1 next year, and the new law makes clear requirements and restrictions on doctors' behavior on online self-media. Experts believe that doctors should be supported and promoted for popular science medical and health knowledge through online live broadcasts, but the premise is that they must meet the requirements of doctors' practice norms, and they should be treated differently from online consultation. (Rule of Law Daily, December 11)

Nowadays, a number of doctor anchors have appeared on the short video platform, and they take short videos from time to time to introduce health and wellness knowledge to the public in a professional capacity, which is the most common way of medical science popularization on the Internet in recent years, blameless. However, some anchors "live broadcast" the process of seeing patients for medical treatment, or edit and produce recorded videos and put them on self-media. Because they are the real medical experience of ordinary people, in the general social psychological background of "difficult to see a doctor", the diagnosis and treatment video is very popular with users.

However, unlike the traditional "doctor's personal show" Internet science popularization method, the diagnosis and treatment video involves both the doctor and the patient, and it is reasonable to say that the doctor should at least obtain the consent of the patient to shoot the live broadcast of the diagnosis and treatment. But as far as the patient's right to informed consent is concerned, this may be a false proposition. Because in the doctor-patient relationship, on the one hand, there are patients who are struggling for medical treatment, on the other hand, the doctor who makes the diagnosis results, and the patients who ask for doctors, so it is difficult to say that the status of the two is completely equal.

On the other hand, the doctor's live broadcast at work will also bring a sense of offense and disrespect to the patient. Patients have a hard time hanging up the number to see the doctor after queuing up, but see the doctor while seeing a doctor, but also talking to himself in front of the camera as a disease explainer, which will make the patient feel that the doctor is "two-minded", so he doubts the doctor's seriousness in the work, and the accuracy of the diagnosis, and even the contradiction between doctor and patient. And to be fair, as long as you are stationed on the platform as an anchor, in order to shoot video, you will inevitably consider the shooting effect problems such as "picture quality, color, camera position", etc. It is difficult to say that the doctor will not be distracted at all while working live.

Not all people who go to the hospital are willing to become the video material of the doctor's anchor, because in the real life of the real patient treatment, most patients are certainly not willing to have their conversations with the doctor after being recorded by the camera, open to the whole network, and then pointed out by countless strangers to comment. In particular, the medical consultation process involves the situation of their own physical health, and may also be asked about personal diet, living, family life and other aspects of the problem, these personal privacy is not suitable for public. Taking a step back, even if patients do not mind being broadcast live, a large number of videos containing the privacy of real patients are widely disseminated, and it is likely to slide into the vulgar taste of catering to some people's voyeuristic desires for other people's lives, and once the amount of forwarding is too large, the noise of people around them may also bring trouble to "famous" patients.

The blind pursuit of high traffic is the problem of the current short video industry, if the diagnosis and treatment video continues to grow barbarically, it is likely that there will be individual doctors with improper mental skills, turning the anchor as the main business, and only want to use their own doctor identity to operate the account, thus ignoring the doctor's own duties; there may also be some people who are eager to become famous overnight as "internet celebrities" pretend to be patients to seek medical treatment, and then deliberately pretend to be ugly and funny to bo traffic, destroying the normal hospital order and medical environment.

Moreover, medicine itself has considerable complexity, each person's physical condition, past medical history, etc. are different, the same disease may have different causes and treatment methods. The one-sided record of the live broadcast of diagnosis and treatment is easy to mislead the audience, so that netizens mistakenly think that they can be a doctor by brushing a few more videos, thus delaying treatment, which is obviously contrary to the original intention of "science popularization".

Medical science popularization meets the needs of today's times, but how not to fall into the cliché of "net red traffic", how to comply with the corresponding legal provisions and rules and regulations while achieving high-quality science education output, in line with medical ethics, there are many places that need to be considered, it is worth noting that it must not be at the expense of patient privacy and willingness.