Jehovah's Witnesses In Spain Fined 10K Euros

[Jack Ryan]

They kept a database of doctors who do bloodless surgery/medical care. Under EU, that's not legal - in EU opinion.

 

[Evacuated]

So, the problem here is compiling a list of medical professionals sympathetic to bloodless surgery without the individual's  permission for their inclusion on the list?

OKAY................................................. ............?

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

So, the problem here is compiling a list of medical professionals sympathetic to bloodless surgery without the individual's  permission for their inclusion on the list?

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.

I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

[ComfortMyPeople]

In Spain, legislation is extremely protective and protects individual liberties and the rights of citizens. One of these rights is the "protection of personal data". That is, when a third party wants to obtain my information (name, address, for example) or much more importantly (my religion, medical issues, financial issues) I have to authorize him. Otherwise it is prohibited and is punishable.

That's why in Spain we do not use the forms of preaching records to record "not at home", return visits, etc. We did it on personal sheets, and lately we are recommended to do it on the mobile or tablet to be more discreet. Still, legally, if I write down "Ms. Maria, street x, interested," you should ask her for permission to have that information. In short, a real problem. None of us do that.

And that brings us to the fine. What the Hospital Liaison Committees have done is illegal. They have done it in good faith, but it is illegal. They have interviewed doctors and collected information from patients (Witnesses) and, without their consent, they have taken note of these data, they have collected them in an electronic file, and (of this I am not sure) they have transfer this data to third others.

All this is penalized. Here when you enter the door of a doctor the first time the first thing they do is to extend a form where you authorize the query to keep your data.

What saddens me in particular is the lack of orientation that the headquartes has given to the brothers who attend this work. Only a small form would have sufficed, asking the interested parties if they give their consent to the fact that the interview information could be collected and stored for later use. Let's see if they do it in the future, because this fine affects a small community in this country, but luckily the government agency has not investigated the rest of Spain.

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

They have done it in good faith, but it is illegal. They have interviewed doctors and collected information from patients (Witnesses) and, without their consent, they have taken note of these data, they have collected them in an electronic file, and (of this I am not sure) they have transfer this data to third others.

Thanks for the increased clarity on this @JW Insider and @ComfortMyPeople.

Seems to be the unauthorised compiling and sharing of a sort of "best buy" consumer rating list of doctors who are 1. willing to engage in non-blood medical management. and 2. having a good "bedside manner". I don't know much about data protection laws in Spain, but it does seem in the context of the news report to have been a rather ill-advised venture.

[JOHN BUTLER]

And i thought the Org had a clever legal system. They must have known they were breaking the Law. 

Trying to make dishonesty pay once again. They don't seem to learn much do they  

[FelixCA]

While there is no precedence in the US to gather data for medical purposes to bloodless surgeries, it appears the Branch Office might have been misled by Spain government officials that would have given them permission to gather such data.

https://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/final-reports/iomracereport/reldata5.html

This comes in a time, where the political atmosphere is changing for the worse in Spain. The people might once again ally themselves with the axes of evil as they did before.

Whatever the case may be. No true witness should weigh in as to the legality of the intent. It seems one person here has not just become a judge, but also a supporter of the government.

Perhaps that kind of thinking is best served in the JW ONLY forum, where people are free to be as judgmental and cynical against the Watchtower as much as they want.

Having said that, it appears the rules have changed in Spain.

The Health System in Transition (HiT) profile on Spain was co-produced by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the Spanish Association of Public Health and Health Care Administration (Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria, SESPAS) and the Institute for Health Sciences in Aragón (Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud, I+CS).

 

Spain will have to prove what provision the Watchtower violated under international law.