An unusual letter from King's College Hospital

[sofaRunner]

this is a sorry state of affairs & a sad reflection on the community if it is so quick to damn attempts by the local hospital to provide a high level of care. Peckham Rose your posts about raising this concern at the Public meeting were hugely misleading - looks of horror??? really???? I doubt very much that the Fundraising Dept wrote the letters without careful consideration. As you have given the COE's e-mail address I hope that everyone here will drop him a line in recognition of the care that is delivered & local support

[PeckhamRose]

FFS you lot.

You are so up your own ar&es sometimes - all I did was ask questions for a few people.

I turn up at meetings. I care. Up yours!

[Ladymuck]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> FFS you lot.

> You are so up your own ar&es sometimes - all I did

> was ask questions for a few people.

> I turn up at meetings. I care. Up yours!

*looks aghast*

You have a point PR...you went to the trouble of attending the meeting. I fully intended to go but never actually got around to it. I guess I didn't care enough. In that respect you are a bigger person than me.

[ianr]

>I don't know if you've seen the letter in question

I haven't, and I don't feel able to make any judgment without having done so.

[dulwichmum]

*

[DJKillaQueen]

Take a moment folks to remember what the core issue of this discussion really is.

No-one is saying that fund raising is a bad thing...nor are they saying that Kings shouldn't be doing it.

The question is simply a point of process. Should patient information be 'processed' for use for direct mail in relation to (in this case) fundraising aspects of Kings, and within a relatively short period following treatment?

Some people think not. They find it intrusive and inappropriate given that they have recently received treatment. It's a valid viewpoint to have and one that should be respected. Others feel the opposite way and are more than happy to receive this mail.

The law does require all bodies that use data, to register for what uses data is processed.

In Canada and the US....hospital charities are allowed to direct mail patients but all patients are given the option to opt out at time of treatment from such targetting.

I can't see why a similar system shouldn't be considered here, so that those that don't want to receive direct mail, won't. After all just because someone has benefitted from treatment doesn't mean they should be forced to receive unrelated mail if they don't want it. It's seems to me to be the sensible solution to the opposing arguments.

[Huguenot]

If we go back up the thread we'll see that KCH completely comply with data protection laws, and we'll also see the provenance of the mailing list.

Everyone has the option to opt-out - in fact this letter was even better, as it was an opportunity to opt-in.

People seem to be levelling charges against KCH that are simply not true.

[ontheedge]

St Thomas Hospital have yesterday put up corridor size posters with some jolly looking health care staff and patients telling people the different ways they can raise money to help the hospital.

Not sure yet what I think of it but as some are directly outside by office am sure I will form an opinion soon

[Earl Aelfheah]

I completely disagree with, what seems to be the general view ,that this is appropriate. If the Hospital does not have sufficient funding then it should appeal to government for more money. The NHS should be funded through a fair and progressive taxation system, for the benefit of everyone. It should not have to rely on charity, nor should it be approaching patients for donations, in my opinion.

[Keef]

it should appeal to government for more money

I'm sure they'd be very sympathetic.

[Earl Aelfheah]

well they may not, but as a society we have to make the decision whether or not to make funding for healthcare a priority for politicians seeking election. The NHS is a shared resource and we should all contribute to it through a fair taxation system. I still don't think it is appropriate to ask patients for contributions.

[RosieH]

rahrahrah, I think you're really going to struggle to find anyone to agree with you on that

[jollybaby]

I wouldn't class myself as vulnerable. I work for the nhs. I can see that hospitals need to raise funds through charity. I can see that kings wil have ensured that they haven't broken any laws by sending this letter.

However on a personal level when I received this letter, only a day or two after I had had my first outpatient appointment ever at kings, it made me feel uncomfortable. I did feel like I was being pounced on to donate. I also felt like there had been an invasion of privacy- as if more people than necessary were aware that I was now officially a hospital patient. I think I was feeling a little sensitive because of the nature of the problem I had been seen about but even so it just didn't seem right.

Some people may say - oh well surely raising the funds for a new scanner or whatever is worth causing a few people to feel uncomfortable - but I'm really not sure that it was an appropriate way of seeking donations. I think I would have even preferred a letter or leaflet being posted with my initial appointment letter.

[PeckhamRose]

Would not that have made you feel more uncomfortable? As if - if you can not afford to donate then you may feel guilty for accepting the appt.

Nahhhh - this lot have made up their minds, jollybaby!

[Keef]

As have you.

[DJKillaQueen]

There's nothing wrong with posters advertising fundraising......that's not intrusive and that for me is a right way to raise awareness.

Even if one person feels uncomfortable at receiving a letter after being a patient that is something that should be looked at. And unless the patient has been asked to tick a box saying they DON'T want to receive non treatment related mail then they haven't opted out of anything. I find it hard to understand why anyone can't see that would a reasonable solution to preventing those (however many or few they may be) from being affected by such a letter.

It's important to remember that one of the key points in this discussion is the proximity of the letter to treatment. If you receive treatment and then a few days or weeks later get a letter about fundraising then the intent is clear. I know that the letter is not a direct request for donations, but there is a marketting reason as to why the letters are sent to recent patients. There WILL be people who can't afford it but will feel obliged to donate or be left feeling they should be able to and my concern particularly is for the vulnerable, such as the elderly or those with mental health problems, who may well be left confused or upset.

After all we have processes in place for so many other things to protect the few. Giving patients the option to opt out of direct mail/ marketting would simply be another one of those processes.

[jollybaby]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Would not that have made you feel more

> uncomfortable? As if - if you can not afford to

> donate then you may feel guilty for accepting the

> appt.

> Nahhhh - this lot have made up their minds,

> jollybaby!

Perhaps-but if it had been enclosed along with the directions/parking etc it may have seemed less targeted and more like a part of the generic hospital info pack. Anyhow am not meaning to enter huge political debate - I just wanted to put across how I felt as a recipient. The outcome in my case - the letter went straight into the bin.

[daizie]

I recieved the letter too ( as well, at the same time, a letter from a private medical company offering cover) four months after having life saving surgery but sub standard after care at Kings. My initial knee jerk reaction was blooming cheek, someones having a laugh and that was that. Still not sure wether its right or wrong to target people this way .

[Earl Aelfheah]

The NHS is not a charity. I do not want to see it become one. It is a public service, which should be funded properly by the government. Police don't ask for donations after attending to the victims of crim. Neither do firemen after putting outa blaze. The NHS should lobby government for funds, not individual patients.

[Keef]

Fire service asks for donations towards it's website, and there is a fire fighters charity to support them in times of need. Not quite the same I know, but still a request for donations. The MET asks for volunteers to support them, which is not a money thing, but based on your argument, there should be no need to rely on volunteers, as it should all be state funded.

As stated earlier, there is nothing new about hospitals relying on charitable donations. Kings haven't suddenly just decided to start doing this.

The only question here is whether the letter was morally correct. At the end of the day, there is no right or wrong answer. Some people found it inappropriate, or were made to feel uncomfortable by it.

Other people (me included) would have either donated, or put it in the bin thinking nothing more of it.

It is a shame that some people had concerns ove it, but at the end of the day, if you don't ask, you don't get, and this letter wasn't even asking as such.

[Mick Mac]

The MET and the Fire Department have not to my knowledge written saying...we saved your life from that criminal/fire, perhaps you would now consider a charitable donation.

This is the point.

[Keef]

Kings haven't done that either, it's just the way you and some others are choosing to read it, so that you've got something to shout about.

When I was at school, the music teacher started a trust, as he never wanted kids to have to pay for music lessons, and face poor kids missing out just because of money. He has since contacted lots of us and asked if we'd like to make a contribution now we're grown up and working. Some did, others didn't because they couldn't. There was nothing cheeky in his asking though.

At the end of the day, Kings has a charit attached to it, the charity has fundraisers, who's job it is to both advertise the charity, and to convince people to give money to the charity. Despite this stupid thread, I suspect that the mail out did indeed spread the word, and probably got a few donations. Job done.

You can't please everyone, especially when some people are so determined to find offence in everything, just to give them a new soap box to get on.

Life is way too short to worry about this so much.

It'll be even shorter if Kings don't have any cash.

[Mick Mac]

Sorry Keef, buts that is exactly what Kings have done. They have purposely selected former patients to receive this letter - how else could you read it? To read it any other way is giving them a huge benefit of the doubt.

As I say, I have donated to Kings, but I strongly disagree with the policy.

Similarly there will be those who steadfastly support the policy, but keep their money in their pocket.

[Keef]

We'll agree to disagree then.

[Marmora Man]

Just a point of historical fact. Hospitals in this country have, for the vast part of their existence, relied upon charity and voluntary support. Barts was established in the 13th century as a religious charitable institution, many other similar hospitals followed in subsequent centuries. The biggest nationalisation ever was the "creation" of the NHS which took over previously charitable and municipal funded establishments in 1948.

So for just over 60 years we've had a tax funded (NOT government funded) health service against several hundred years of charity funding. Charity still has a major role to play, not least in the less "fashionable" elements of healthcare such as geriatrics, mental health and so on - supplementing tax funding and often being more fleet of foot in meeting the aim in a timely fashion.

I therefore support the use of charitable aid and the methods that Kings has deployed - which are I feel, professional, correct, legal and laudable. DJKQ's point that

Even if one person feels uncomfortable at receiving a letter after being a patient that is something that should be looked at

is facile - the tangible benefit of a majority should not be compromised by illogical concern for the intangible "feelings" of a few.