that employees should not share private information on the internet

[Samcro]

about the family they work with ?
If you work with vulnerable people, should you be made to sign an agreement that you won't share private stuff?

I haven't seen the thread in question, so I am talking off the top of my head and I have been out of ward nursing/ nurse education for 6 years, but I can't see that the rules would have got any slacker, I would think that it's a good chance they've become even stricter.

I do think people are more used to 'sharing' and don't always realise how easy it is to trace that info and that really pretty much impossible to totally erase it.

can I repeat that this is not a TAAT

regarding the need for confidentiality is written into company policies as is safe guarding

Two separate things

but can a private person do the same?

Sorry I skim read.

samcro are you talking about you employing them directly ?

If so you can write it into their contract , it would make sense

If they don't like it they don't get the job

could be angency

Well aksherly, doctors publish information about patients on the internet every day. Complete with photos.

Yes, ds and myself have both been in medical journals, but in both cases consent forms had to be signed.

In the thread you are talking about, Pausing, the diagnosis is actually 3 diagnoses, so actually probably a bit more recognisable, especially if you happened to be the mother having a look at mumsnet.

It is odd, I have recognised people on here from things that they have said, it is odd how coincidental bits of quite vague information, suddenly jump out at you.

Somehow I doubt my GP gets signed consent forms for stuff like: "I had a young man in recently complaining of Y, but I tend to think these things are mostly exaggeration and indicate psychological problems," as a passing example to illustrate his theme.

I can entirely see why the medical profession writes articles like that.

But the OP is uncomfortable about the judgy sharing of private information online, regardless of being identified, and that article crosses her line. It's also potentially a false diagnosis - and pretty hurtful to the person about whom he was writing.

Can't remember, but think I found it when googling GP for other reasons, so it wasn't exactly buried in the vaults.

I mean, the GP would claim that's completely anonymous. But it's not to the person who had recently seen him, if they happened across his dated article.

(I've no knowledge of whether they did, btw.)

(And I think the GP gave more detail than that. I remember at the time thinking "Woah!")