Dr. Kevin Patterson- The Article

[Blackadder1916]

There are time limits of a sort.  The following is from the BC Personal Information Protection Act, but other federal and provincial privacy legislation probably have similiar provisions.

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/P/03063_01.htm#section22

Disclosure for archival or historical purposes
22.  An organization may disclose, without the consent of the individual, personal information for archival or historical purposes if

(a) a reasonable person would not consider the personal information to be too sensitive to the individual to be disclosed at the proposed time,

(b) the disclosure is for historical research and is in accordance with section 21,

(c) the information is about someone who has been dead for 20 or more years, or

(d) the information is in a record that has been in existence for 100 or more years.

 

[Greymatters]

There are time limits of a sort.  The following is from the BC Personal Information Protection Act, but other federal and provincial privacy legislation probably have similiar provisions.

All legal and true, but I am wondering about the contract that the DND is proposing to have contractors sign, which wouldnt be covered by the BC PIPA. 

 

[Donut]

If it's a federal jurisdiction matter, it's probably under the jurisdiction of the Privacy Act, or PIPEDA (as it's a private sector contractor versus a federal agency).

Privacylawyer.ca

 

[Greymatters]

If it's a federal jurisdiction matter, it's probably under the jurisdiction of the Privacy Act, or PIPEDA (as it's a private sector contractor versus a federal agency).

Privacylawyer.ca 

That makes more sense...

 

[Donut]

Latest from the National Post:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8d4535f4-4db0-46b9-a02e-8d409c8eadf3&k=5844

Doctor faces possible court martial over article
Robert Barron, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, August 24, 2007


NANAIMO, B.C. -- A doctor faces potential court-martial proceedings after the Canadian military launched two investigations into a story he wrote for an American political magazine in which he describes the death of a soldier in his care while in Afghanistan.

Lt.-Cmdr. Pierre Babinsky, a spokesman for Canadian Forces Legal Services, said Dr. Kevin Patterson, a B.C. doctor who worked at a Canadian Forces-led hospital in Kandahar earlier this year, faces military investigations for the story Talk to me like a father, which appeared in the July/August issue of Mother Jones.

Babinsky said the story, which describes in graphic detail Patterson's attempt to save the life of Canadian reservist Cpl. Kevin Megeney of Nova Scotia after he was shot by friendly fire in his own tent, has raised "some concerns" from within the military...

 

[armyvern]

I just read through this thread for the first time.

Obviously, with the article below there were valid grounds for investigation.

Many have made mention that the article, blog etc make mention of the mother being "informed beforehand." That leaves me one query.

Is Cpl Megeney's mother the Primary NOK?? I'm sure that he had a dad too, and if his father was listed by him as the Primary NOK, then it would be the father who would have had to express the written consent to the release of the information and details. A lot of people seem to be making reference to the mother in the articles. She obviously is NOK, but she may not, necessarily, be the Primary NOK.

I only hope that, if investigation shows that this information was indeed published without the proper Primary NOK consent, and/or it was in violation of any contractual agreements signed by the Doc WRT PERSEC/OPSEC, and/or any Federal or Provincial regulations were circumvented in its release to the public, that justice is swift and hard.

Although scholarly articles are good for learning, I disagree with anyone making a single dime off the publication of details improperly or illegally released regarding someones death. If that's the case ... all proceeds should be directed to the family affected by its release. Anyone, including the publisher, complicit in the improper/illegal release of the information certainly should not be allowed to financially benefit from such release.

What a truly sad situation.

 

[Armymedic]

The sadest part of it all is that it is quite an excellent article.

 

[Emenince Grise]

And the difference between the Mother Jones article and this National Geographic is what?

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0612/feature3/

 

[armyvern]

And the difference between the Mother Jones article and this National Geographic is what?

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0612/feature3/

That it involves American soldiers, under different circumstances. Different laws are applicable, than in Canadian Law.

In the Mother Jones' incident, the doctor etc providing the details was subject to Canadian Law, and to OPSEC/PERSEC agreements he signed when contracted by the CF.

The National Geographic article is irrelevant; it is an apple that is being compared to an orange.

 

[Emenince Grise]

That it involves American soldiers, under different circumstances. Different laws are applicable, than in Canadian Law.

In the Mother Jones' incident, the doctor etc providing the details was subject to Canadian Law, and to OPSEC/PERSEC agreements he signed when contracted by the CF.

The National Geographic article is irrelevant; it is an apple that is being compared to an orange.

Yes, that is somewhat true. However, the outline of the medical experience is quite similar. My point is that the larger issue of confidentiaity/disclosure is a very varied area. To narrowly define the issue is, I believe, to miss the larger point. As has been said above, the Mother Jones article is a well-written piece. And this shows that the issue can be treated in a very different manner.

 

[armyvern]

Yes, that is somewhat true. However, the outline of the medical experience is quite similar. My point is that the larger issue of confidentiaity/disclosure is a very varied area. To narrowly define the issue is, I believe, to miss the larger point. As has been said above, the Mother Jones article is a well-written piece. And this shows that the issue can be treated in a very different manner.

I'd agree that the Mother Jones' article is a well-written piece, but if the provider of the details did so illegally in contravention of confidentiality agreements that he signed, and/or without the primary NOK permission required by Canadian Law, the ongoing investigation is fully warranted.

And, I would hope that, if the facts show the above to be the reality, both he and the publisher of the information be dealt with appropriately and swiftly.

No matter how scholarly the article, the law still applies. The neglect to apply the law and/or breaches of OPSEC/PERSEC and/or confidentiality agreements in this case (ie because it is scholarly) may lead to others, of not so scholarly intent, abusing or neglecting that law and those agreements using this incident as their precedent.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The 'family' members can think whatever they want. IF his mother was the primary NOK, and IF she read the article before hand and approved of it (and everything points to this as true), the 'family' members can complain all they want. It's not their call and that should have been the end of the story.

 

[armyvern]

The 'family' members can think whatever they want. IF his mother was the primary NOK, and IF she read the article before hand and approved of it (and everything points to this as true), the 'family' members can complain all they want. It's not their call and that should have been the end of the story.

Actually, I believe that the Doc has conceded that he did not seek the family's (ie the mother's - if she's NOK) prior to writing the article. Indications are that it was written and then the mother was advised beforehand of it's impending publication by the mailing of a copy of the article to her residence. The mother has said that the copy of the article was received at her residence during a time period when her family was away on vacation, and that its publication actually took place before that vacation ended.

I'm getting that from links in this thread. That doesn't sound to me that the NOK consented to it's publication or to it's writing. It sounds as if they were simply advised that it was written and going to be published shortly. Of course, if this advising occured as detailed by the mother while her family was away from home on vacation, they weren't really advised in advance that it was coming either, but rather found it all out after the fact.

I guess that's why it's under investigation. Time will tell.

 

[George Wallace]

I would hesitate a guess, but does it matter if the Dr or his publisher working on his behalf makes contact with the NOK?  As stated in the article, the Mother felt that this publication would help to bring closure. 

Now we have debated this for how many pages and all we are doing is restating what was stated previously.........who feels like a dog chasing his/her tail? 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Actually, I believe that the Doc has conceded that he did not seek the family's (ie the mother's - if she's NOK) prior to writing the article. Indications are that it was written and then the mother was advised beforehand of it's impending publication by the mailing of a copy of the article to her residence. The mother has said that the copy of the article was received at her residence during a time period when her family was away on vacation, and that its publication actually took place before that vacation ended.

I'm getting that from links in this thread. That doesn't sound to me that the NOK consented to it's publication or to it's writing. It sounds as if they were simply advised that it was written and going to be published shortly. Of course, if this advising occured as detailed by the mother while her family was away from home on vacation, they weren't really advised in advance that it was coming either, but rather found it all out after the fact.

I guess that's why it's under investigation. Time will tell.

If that's the case, my point is moot.

Cheers,
rg

 

[tannerthehammer]

What an amazing and gripping first hand account of the realities of war...

 

[Yrys]

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/070920/x092013A.html

Published: Thursday, September 20, 2007 | 7:39 PM ET
Canadian Press: Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - Military police have decided not to charge a Canadian doctor who published a graphic description of the last moments of a wounded soldier's life in Afghanistan.

The National Investigative Service (NIS) looked at whether Dr. Kevin Patterson broke any laws in an article written last summer about the operating room death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney, a 25-year-old reservist from Stellarton, N.S. "There was no evidence to support criminal or service charges under the National Defence Act," said Capt. Cindi Tessier, a spokeswoman for the NIS.

The article, which appeared in the July-August issue of Mother Jones magazine, resulted in a storm of criticism from the friends and family of the soldier, who said the account was tasteless and violated medical ethics standards. The Defence Department launched two investigatons into the article in which Patterson described in graphic detail the wounds suffered by Megeney, who was shot in the chest in his tent at Kandahar Airfield, the main NATO base in southern Afghanistan.

While deciding no charges will be laid, the military has yet to decide whether Patterson, who worked as a doctor at the airfield's coalition medical facility - known as the Role 3 - breached any ethical guidelines.The review by the military's medical services branch will determine, among other things, whether he is allowed to work for the military ever again under contract. "There are a whole bunch of options that could come out of the medical group's investigation," said Tessier. The shooting of Megeney - on March 6, 2007 - is also still under investigation by military police officers and it's not clear when it will be completed, she said.

Even though he was essentially a civilian contractor, Patterson was subject to the National Defence Act and to the military code of service discipline while overseas. He could have faced criminal charges or even administrative sanctions, such the docking of pay, just like soldiers. Since returning from Kandahar, his contract with the military has expired.

Patterson's 7,000 word memoir recounts the six weeks he spent at the Kandahar military base, the climax of which was Megeney's shooting. His vivid description of the young's soldier's massive bleeding wound and the desperate, ultimately unsuccessful effort to save him angered not only the family, but Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who comes from the same home town and attended the funeral.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

A related thread.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60408.0.html

 

[Armymedic]

He will not be changed under NDA, nor should he as his article and description did not contravene any of those regulations. That was never an issue.

How his article is interpreted ethically by his peers will not result in "charges" but reprimands of some kind if it is warranted.

 

[geo]

He will not be charged..... and will probably not be employed by the CF anytime soon.