This is truly horrifying and I am stunned that any organisation with the smallest sense of issues like consent, privacy and data protection ever signed off on it.
This isn't being filmed in a semi-public place, like the lecture hall example given earlier. I remember a thread on here where posters were outraged that a pregnant woman had her blood pressure taken and a Doppler foetal heartbeat check while in a waiting room - rightly so as it was an enormous invasion of privacy to be given medical attention in a public place like that. This goes so far beyond that scenario. It is awful. I would be stunned if consent can be implied by a notice in a waiting room - when the very purpose of your visit is urgent, specialised medical attention. It's not like they are filming in Aldi and you can just choose to go to Lidl instead if you don't like it. You are there either because of an appointment to be at that place at that time, or because of an emergency medical need. In neither case should the fact you turn up for medical treatment be taken to equal agreeing to allow your treatment be filmed. Even if nobody ever views it, it is a horrid breach of privacy. And if organisations like the bloody CIA can be hacked, then I'd be damn surprised that a cheap TV company can claim it has the capacity to guarantee that the footage won't be seen.
It gets worse that the "interesting cases" will be identified to the TV company to allow them then to seek consent. How? Passing on a patient's name and contact details? Passing on an outline of their condition and diagnosis? Even the fact that a person attended for an appointment is private information that should never be disclosed to a third party. This is invasive and wrong, wrong, wrong.
Just imagine it was done with smear test or prostrate screening. It's not even half as bad since the results are not communicated to you there and then, but imagine someone filming you, with only a half-hearted mealy-worded sign to tell you about it.
What languages are the signs in? What about visually impaired women? Foreign women? Women with literacy problems? Don't they deserve the chance to access the information too? What about the cases where women are brought directly to the scanning room without sitting in a waiting room long enough to notice a sign?
If everyone involved thought this was a perfectly fine way to do business, there would be no misleading signs, no instructions to staff not to raise the issue unless asked, no smoke and mirrors. It's absolutely shameful behaviour on behalf of all involved and I would be very surprised if it isn't outright illegal. I would love to see a court adjudicate on this but hey, the legal aid budget has been trimmed again...