一起發生在美國醫院裏的偷拍事件

Anita Chanko could not sleep. At 4 a.m., on an August night in 2012, she settled onto the couch in her Yorkville living room with her dog, Daisy, and her parrot, Elliott, and flipped on the DVR. On came the prior night’s episode of “NY Med,” the popular real-life medical series set at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, starring Dr. Mehmet Oz. Mrs. Chanko, 75, was a fan of the show and others like it.

2012年8月的一天夜裏，安妮塔·錢科(Anita Chanko)失眠了。凌晨4點，她窩在自己位於約克維爾的家中客廳裏的沙發上，在寵物狗黛西(Daisy)和鸚鵡埃利奧特(Elliott)的陪伴下，打開了DVR（數字視頻錄像機）。電視上播放的是前一晚的《紐約醫務組》(“NY Med”)，這是一部大受歡迎的醫務紀實系列片，拍攝地點是紐約長老會醫院(NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital)，領銜主角是穆罕默德·奧茲(Mehmet Oz)醫生。75歲的錢科女士是這部片子的忠實觀衆，十分喜歡看。

“It starts off, there’s a woman with stomach cancer and her family, and then there’s somebody with a problem with their baby, I think it was a heart,” she remembered. “And then I see the doctor that treated my husband.”

“片子開始了，先是一個患有胃癌的女子和她的家人，然後是某人和他們生病的孩子，我想是心臟的毛病吧，”她回憶道。“再然後，我看到了曾經搶救過我丈夫的那名醫生。”

Mark Chanko, her husband, died 16 months earlier, in April 2011, after being struck by a sanitation truck while crossing a street near his home. The doctors and nurses at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center tried in vain to save his life.

16個月前的2011年4月，她的丈夫馬克·錢科(Mark Chanko)在他們家附近過馬路時被環衛車撞了，紐約長老會醫院/威爾康奈爾醫學中心(Weill Cornell Medical Center)的醫生和護士們竭盡全力想要挽救他的生命，卻沒能成功。馬克最後還是因爲這起事故去世。

On the TV screen, she saw a chief surgery resident, Sebastian Schubl, responding to an emergency in which a man is hit by a vehicle. “And then I see, even with the blurred picture, you could tell it was him,” she said. “You could hear his speech pattern. I hear my husband say, ‘Does my wife know I’m here?’ ”

電視屏幕上，外科總住院醫師塞巴斯蒂安·舒布爾(Sebastian Schubl)正在應對一起急診，一名男子被車撞了。“接着我就看到了我的丈夫，儘管畫面經過了模糊處理，但仍足以分辨出那就是他，”錢科太太說。“你可以聽出他說話的方式。我聽到他說：‘我妻子知道我在這裏麼？’ ”

There was no doubt in her mind: The blurred-out man moaning in pain was her husband of almost 46 years, the Korean War veteran she met in a support group for parents without partners.

至此她的心中再無疑問：這個影像模糊、痛苦呻吟的男子，正是與自己相伴近46年的丈夫，那個她當初在單身父母(parents without partners)後援小組裏遇到的韓戰退伍軍人。

“I hear them saying his blood pressure is falling. I hear them getting out the paddles and then I hear them saying, ‘O.K., are you ready to pronounce him?’ ”

“我聽到他們說他的血壓正在下降，聽到他們拿出心臟除顫器，然後有人說：‘就這樣吧，準備好宣佈死亡了嗎？’ ”

She clenched her fists so tightly that “the palms of my hands almost looked like stigmata” and her mouth got so dry that her tongue stuck to the roof “as if I had just eaten a whole jar of peanut butter.”

她不由攥緊了拳頭，以至於“手掌上都是紅色斑痕”；她感到口乾舌燥，舌頭粘在上顎，“就好像剛剛吃下了一整罐花生醬。”

“I saw my husband die before my eyes.”

“我看着我的丈夫在我眼前死去。”

No one in the Chanko family had given “NY Med” permission to film Mr. Chanko’s treatment at the hospital or to broadcast the moments leading up to his death.

錢科一家從未許可《紐約醫務組》拍攝錢科先生在醫院的治療過程，或是向公衆播放他去世前的情形。

Such moments — indeed, all of the intimate details of a person’s health — are supposed to be shared only with a patient and whomever they designate, under a federal law known as Hipaa.

根據聯邦法律HIPAA（《健康保險隱私及責任法案》）的規定，這樣的時刻——事實上，應該說是所有關乎個人健康的私密細節——應該僅限於傷患及其指定的人選才有權瞭解。

In the 18 years since the law was passed, doctors and hospitals have put in place an ever-expanding list of rules meant to protect patient privacy. Yet even in the face of this growing sensitivity, real-life shows like “NY Med” have proliferated, piggybacking off fictional counterparts like “E.R.,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and “House.”

自這項法律通過18年以來，醫生和醫院建立起了越來越多的規則，旨在保護傷患的隱私。然而，即使在人們正變得更加敏感的情況下，藉着《急診室的故事》(“E.R.”)、《實習醫生格蕾》(“Grey’s Anatomy”)和《豪斯醫生》(“House”)等虛構醫務劇的熱播之勢，《紐約醫務組》之類的醫務紀實片也層出不窮。

Medical ethicists and groups like the American Medical Association worry that these shows exploit patients’ pain for public consumption, but their makers argue that they educate viewers and inspire people to choose careers in medicine.

美國醫學協會(American Medical Association)等團體和醫療倫理學家擔心這些節目是在利用傷患的痛苦供大衆消費，但這些節目的製作人則辯解他們是在教育觀衆，並激勵人們選擇醫學相關的職業。

“We have heard many stories of people who were inspired to go to medical school, to become nurses or paramedics, or to head into particular specialties like trauma or transplant surgery after watching our show,” Terence Wrong, executive producer of “NY Med,” said in an email. (He declined to discuss Mr. Chanko’s case or to be interviewed for this article.)

《紐約醫務組》的執行製片人特倫斯·朗(Terence Wrong)在電子郵件中寫道：“我們已經聽說過很多這樣的事例：人們受我們節目的啓發，考取了醫學院，成爲護士或醫務輔助人員，或是鑽研起創傷或外科移植手術等特殊專業。”（他拒絕談論錢科先生的案例，也不願意就本文接受採訪。）

Hospitals like NewYork-Presbyterian, meanwhile, have seized upon such programs as a way to showcase themselves, vying to allow TV crews to film their staff and patients — even emergency-room patients sometimes in no condition to give permission. When the first season of “NY Med” was broadcast on ABC in 2012, the hospital’s vice president of public affairs at the time, Myrna Manners, told PR Week, “You can’t buy this kind of publicity, an eight-part series on a major broadcast network.” (A second season, also based at the hospital, ran over the summer and garnered more viewers than the first. ABC has not announced whether another season is planned.)

另一方面，紐約長老會醫院等醫療機構也想要以此類節目作爲展示自己的窗口，忙不迭地許可電視臺的攝製組來拍攝自己的工作人員和傷患——甚至有時還涉及急診室接診的情況危重、根本無法自己表示是否許可拍攝的傷患。2012年，“紐約醫學”的第一季在美國廣播公司(ABC)播出，該醫院當時主管公衆事務的副院長米爾納·曼納斯(Myrna Manners)告訴《公關週刊》(PR Week)：“在主流傳媒網絡上播放的八集系列片，這可是花錢也買不到的宣傳。”（該劇的第二季在夏季播出，它也是在這家醫院拍攝的，並吸引了比第一季更多的觀衆。ABC尚未宣佈是否計劃製作第三季。）

For the Chankos, the episode of “NY Med” added a coda of anger to more than a year of grief. Their daughter, Pamela Chanko, 46, said seeing the specifics of her father’s injuries and his death on TV sent her spiraling back into clinical depression. “It just sent me straight back to square one,” she said.

但對於錢科一家，這一集《紐約醫務組》卻是給他們一年多來的悲傷加上了個憤怒的尾聲。他們的女兒，46歲的帕梅拉·錢科(Pamela Chanko)表示，因爲從電視上看到父親受傷和死亡的細節，她的臨牀抑鬱症復發了。她說：“這就好像直接把我丟回了原點。”

Kenneth Chanko, 57, Mr. Chanko’s son, filed complaints with the hospital, the New York State Department of Health, ABC, a hospital accrediting group and the United StatesDepartment of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office.

錢科先生的兒子，57歲的肯尼思·錢科(Kenneth Chanko)向紐約長老會醫院、紐約州衛生署(New York State Department of Health)、ABC、一個醫院評定組織以及美國衛生與公衆服務局民權辦公室(United States Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office)提交了投訴。

The show had caused him “great emotional distress and psychological harm,” he wrote in a complaint to the hospital. “I had to unnecessarily relive my father’s death at your hospital a second time, while knowing that the public at large was able to — and continues to be able to — watch my father’s passing, for the purposes of what can only be described as drive-by voyeuristic ‘entertainment.’ ”

這節目給他造成了“巨大的精神痛苦和心理傷害”，他在給醫院的投訴信中寫道。“我不得不毫無必要地重溫我的父親在貴院去世的情景，而我也知道，廣大公衆能夠——並繼續觀看我父親的過世，只是出於一種唯有被稱爲偷窺癖的娛樂性目的。”

ABC quickly removed the segment involving Mr. Chanko from its website, DVDs and future viewings (although not from the promotional blurb for the episode, which still says, “Sebastian Schubl, a Dr. McDreamy-like young trauma surgeon, tries to save the day when a critically injured pedestrian struck by a vehicle is brought to the E.R.”). In 2013, the state cited the hospital for violating Mr. Chanko’s rights.

ABC迅速從其網站、DVD和未來的節目安排中刪除了與錢科先生有關的片段（但該集的宣傳簡介中仍然寫道：“塞巴斯蒂安·舒布爾，一名像美夢先生（Dr. McDreamy，《實習醫生格蕾》中的男一號）一樣的年輕的創傷外科醫生，試圖挽救被車輛撞成重傷送往急診部的行人。”）。在2013年，紐約州因長老會醫院侵犯了錢科先生的權利而對其進行傳訊。

That was not enough for the Chankos, who sued ABC, NewYork-Presbyterian and Dr. Schubl for damages. An appellate panel recently dismissed the case, but the family has asked for that decision to be reviewed. Dr. Schubl and the hospital declined to comment for this article, citing the continuing litigation. ABC referred a reporter to Mr. Wrong’s statement.

但這對於錢科一家來說還遠不夠，他們又起訴了ABC、紐約長老會醫院和舒布爾醫生，要求他們賠償損失。日前，受理上訴的小組駁回了此案，但錢科一家已要求對該決定進行復審。舒布爾醫生和醫院均以訴訟仍在繼續爲由拒絕了本文的置評請求。ABC則讓一名記者引述了朗先生的聲明。

In court filings, the hospital and ABC do not dispute that they did not have consent from Mr. Chanko or his family, but they say the patient is not identifiable to the public. The network has asserted that because “NY Med” is produced by its news division, it is protected by the First Amendment. Lawyers for NewYork-Presbyterian have argued that the state does not recognize a common law right to privacy and that any privacy right Mr. Chanko did have ended upon his death. They say that the Chankos themselves are responsible for their loss of privacy.

在法庭文件中，醫院和ABC均不否認他們未徵得錢科先生及其家屬的同意，但他們聲稱他們已經對片子進行過處理，使普通公衆無法辨認出傷患身份。此外，ABC堅稱，《紐約醫務組》由其新聞部門製作出品，受《憲法第一修正案》(First Amendment)的保護。紐約長老會醫院的律師也主張，該州並未確立承認隱私權的普通法，且在錢科先生死亡後，他的所有隱私權也已隨之終結。他們認爲，會喪失隱私權是錢科一家自己的責任。

“There would today still be no identification of the patient or his family but for the latter’s publication via this lawsuit,” a brief for the hospital says.

簡言之，該醫院認爲：“如果不是後來因爲這場官司造成的內情披露，直到今天普通觀衆也不會知道傷患或其家屬的身份。”

The day Mr. Chanko was hit by a private garbage truck had been entirely forgettable, his wife said. “If I had a diary, I’d leave the page blank.”

錢科太太說，她一直刻意遺忘丈夫被私營垃圾車撞倒的那一天。“如果我寫日記的話，我會把那一頁留白。”

They arrived home past 11 p.m. after spending a few days at their second home in Goshen, Conn., in Litchfield County. As they unloaded their luggage, Mr. Chanko looked in the refrigerator and noticed they were out of milk and bananas. He decided to run across York Avenue, in the Yorkville section of Manhattan, to a deli.

那天他們離開逗留數日的位於康涅狄格州利奇菲爾德縣歌珊地市的另一處住宅，回到家時已經超過晚上11點了。待放下行李之後，錢科先生看了看冰箱，發現牛奶和香蕉都吃光了，於是他決定穿過曼哈頓約克維爾區的約克大道到一家熟食店去。

After Mr. Chanko had been gone a few minutes, the building doorman buzzed up and asked Mrs. Chanko to come downstairs. Not understanding the urgency, she said she would be down in a bit.

錢科先生出門後才幾分鐘，大樓的門衛就通過蜂鳴器呼叫錢科太太，叫她下樓一趟。當時她完全沒意識到事情有多緊迫，隨口回答說自己一會兒就下去。

The doorman buzzed again. Moments later, the doorbell rang. When she answered, a longtime neighbor grabbed her arm. “Anita, you have to come with me,” she recalled the neighbor as saying. “Mark needs you. He’s been hurt.”

門衛再次呼叫了她。不久，門鈴也響了。她過去應門，一個老鄰居一把抓住了她的胳膊。“安妮塔，快跟我來，”她記得那位鄰居這樣說道。“馬克需要你。他受傷了。”

When she got downstairs and walked outside, Mrs. Chanko saw an ambulance and her 83-year-old husband on a gurney, his head bandaged. The neighbor drove her to NewYork-Presbyterian. There, she watched as the medical team hurriedly pushed the gurney carrying her husband near the emergency room.

她下樓走了出去，看到一輛救護車，她83歲的丈夫躺在輪牀上，頭部纏着繃帶。鄰居開車將她送到了紐約長老會醫院。在那裏，她看着醫務人員急匆匆地將載着她丈夫的輪牀推到急診室附近。

“I rushed up because I wanted to run alongside him and just hold his hand and reassure him and say, ‘You’ll be OK,’ ” she said. The doctor said no. “That would have been my last chance to even say something to him.”

“我衝了上去，因爲我想要跟在他身邊，握着他的手，安慰他說：‘你會沒事的，’ ”錢科太太說。但醫生不許。“這是我最後一次有機會跟我的丈夫說話。”

Mr. Chanko was initially alert and awake, and able to respond to questions, medical records show. But he was in bad shape: His pelvis had been broken in several places, as had his left femur. The skin was ripped off his right leg.

病歷顯示，錢科先生起初還是警覺和清醒的，並能對問題做出反應。但他的情況確實很糟：骨盆和左股骨都有多處骨折。右腿的皮膚也被撕剝開來。

Outside the operating room, doctors and nurses could not detect Mr. Chanko’s pulse and resuscitated him. In the operating room, he became more unstable, medical records show. Twice more they tried to bring him back. He was pronounced dead at 1:17 a.m.

手術室外，醫生和護士檢測不到錢科先生的脈搏，對他實施了心肺復甦。病歷顯示，進入手術室後，他的狀態變得更加不穩定了。他們多次試圖將他搶救回來。但錢科先生還是在凌晨1:17被宣佈死亡。

Dr. Schubl and a social worker walked into the conference room, where the family was waiting, and shut the door.

舒布爾醫生和一名社工一起走進了家屬們一直等候着的會議室，關上了門。

“I did everything I possibly could,” Dr. Schubl told them. “Unfortunately, he did not survive. I am sorry.”

“我們已經盡力了，”舒布爾醫生告訴他們。“不幸的是，他沒能撐過來。請節哀順變。”

The family did not know until the episode was broadcast that a camera was focusing on the closed door of the room where they had gathered and that audio of Dr. Schubl was being recorded.

直到那期節目播出後，這家人才知道，就在他們齊聚的那個房間裏，有個攝像頭正對着那扇緊閉的房門，舒布爾醫生所說的話都被錄了下來。

Afterward, on the episode, Dr. Schubl turned to the camera and said: “Rough day. Rough day.”

在那一集片子裏，後來舒布爾醫生將臉轉向了攝像頭，說道：“真是艱難的一天吶。”

“It was the last clip before the commercial,” Mrs. Chanko said, “or as I put it, ‘Watch this man die, now we’re going to sell you some detergent.’ ”

“這是播放廣告前的最後畫面，”錢科太太說，“要讓我說，他們這樣是想表達，‘看完這男子的慘死，現在我們可以賣給你們洗滌劑了。’ ”

According to PR Week, the public affairs staff at NewYork-Presbyterian contacted Mr. Wrong in 2008, eager to bring one of his shows to the hospital. Mr. Wrong had completed two shows based at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and was working on another in Boston. After three years of trying, production began in 2011 at two campuses of NewYork-Presbyterian: Weill Cornell on the Upper East Side and Columbia University Medical Center in Washington Heights (some filming also took place at Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn). But two months into filming the first season, Mr. Wrong later told The Philadelphia Daily News, “Weill Cornell was just not delivering enough traumas.” To capture more drama and action for “NY Med,” he said he signed contracts with other emergency rooms and began keeping videographers in NewYork-Presbyterian’s emergency room at Weill Cornell 24 hours a day.

《公關週刊》稱，紐約長老會醫院的公共事務人員曾在2008年聯絡朗先生，希望他能在該院拍攝節目。此前，朗先生已在巴爾的摩的約翰斯·霍普金斯醫院(Johns Hopkins Hospital)拍攝完成了兩部節目，當時正在波士頓拍攝另一部。經過三年的努力，2011年，節目終於在紐約長老會醫院的兩個校區：上東城的威爾康奈爾和華盛頓高地的哥倫比亞大學醫學中心(Columbia University Medical Center)開拍（也有部分鏡頭在布魯克林的路德會醫療中心[Lutheran Medical Center]拍攝）。但在第一季開拍兩個月後，朗先生向《費城每日新聞》(Philadelphia Daily News)透露：“威爾康奈爾接診的傷病不夠多。”他說，爲了給《紐約醫務組》尋找更多劇情，自己已經與其他急診室簽約，並開始對紐約長老會醫院在威爾康奈爾的急診室進行每天24小時不間斷的連續攝像。

Mr. Wrong ended up with thousands of hours of footage, and the luxury of cutting any example that was not perfect, he told Capital New York last year. “You can be shut out of a critical moment that the case lacks emotional resonance without,” he said. “I will give you one of those: the ‘goodbye’ moment, it is the moment where a family says goodbye to their loved one going into surgery. If you don’t capture that moment, because a nurse shut the door on your camera’s face, you kill that piece. “

朗先生告訴網絡媒體Capital New York，去年他總共錄製了數千小時的素材，但有幸剪出來的樣片也都不理想。“如果你在關鍵時刻被拒之門外，案例就失去了情感上的共鳴，”他說。“舉個例子：‘告別’時刻，也就是家屬對他們將要上手術檯的心愛之人說再見的時刻。如果護士把你的攝像機拒之門外，你就捕捉不到那一刻，整個案例就毀掉了。”

Some of the patients and families captured by Mr. Wrong’s cameras have no complaints. “I think they were honest in their portrayal of our family and the love that we had and the concerns that any average family would go through when faced with this type of surgery,” said Dara van Dijk, whose mother’s heart valve operation was featured on the same episode as Mr. Chanko’s death. Ms. van Dijk did have one quibble: She was shown falling off a chair while meeting Dr. Oz in the episode. “In a million years, I didn’t think that they would show that,” she said.

也有部分被朗先生的攝像機拍到的傷患和家屬並無怨言。在錄下錢科先生死亡的那一集節目中，還介紹了一位女士的心臟瓣膜手術，這位患者的女兒達拉·範戴克(Dara van Dijk)說：“我認爲他們只是誠實地記錄下了我們的家庭，我們的愛與憂慮，而這些是面對這種手術的任何普通家庭都要經歷的。”不過，範戴克女士也不是完全沒有牢騷：那一集有個鏡頭是她見到奧茲醫生時從椅子上摔了下來。“我萬萬沒想到他們會把這個片段也播了出來，”她說。

Typically, hospitals have not received money in return for allowing medical reality shows to set up shop, and NewYork-Presbyterian is no exception, an ABC spokeswoman said in an email.

ABC的女發言人在一封電子郵件中表示，通常情況下，醫院不會因允許醫務紀實片在本院拍攝而收到金錢報酬，紐約長老會醫院也不例外。

The real payoff for participating hospitals is distinguishing themselves at a time when other forms of promotion are no longer as effective, said Jennifer Coleman, the senior vice president of marketing and public relations for Baylor Scott & White Health, a large hospital system in Texas. Baylor self-produced a reality series about its cancer center and paid to broadcast it on local television. “Advertising is just so saturated right now,” she said. “You put your thumb over anybody’s ad and it’s just the same. That’s what people are trying to break through.” By participating in a major network program, she added, “They get that endorsement.”

得克薩斯州的大型醫療機構Baylor Scott & White Health的市場營銷和公共關係高級副總裁珍妮弗·科爾曼(Jennifer Coleman)指出：醫院參與拍攝所能收穫的真正回報在於：在這個其他形式的宣傳推廣都不再有效的時代裏仍然能夠一舉成名。Baylor自己也錄製了一系列關於其癌症中心的紀實片，並在當地電視臺付費播出。“現在，廣告已經嚴重飽和了，”她說。“如果你用拇指把別家的廣告蓋住，就會發現各家其實沒什麼區別，因此人們開始追求脫穎而出。”通過參加大型的網絡節目項目，“他們得到了認可，”她補充道。

Patients caught up in emergencies are especially vulnerable, posing special issues for reality shows. They may not be conscious or be able to speak for themselves; they may be quite literally exposed, as caregivers work to help them.

陷入緊急狀況的傷患身體尤其脆弱，這給紀實節目造成了特殊的問題。傷患們很可能已經失去了意識，或者無法表達自己的意見；爲了方便醫護人員的搶救工作，他們的身體也可能會有大面積的暴露。

The American College of Emergency Physicians opposes “the filming for public viewing of emergency department patients or staff members except when they can give full informed consent prior to their participation,” yet show after show returns to the emergency room, drawn by the life-or-death stakes.

美國急診醫師學會(American College of Emergency Physicians)反對“在急診科的傷患和工作人員充分知情同意參與前就對他們進行拍攝並提供給公衆觀看”，然而，生死關頭扣人心絃，驅使着一部又一部節目在急診室裏誕生。

The New York Times Co. was sued for invasion of privacy in the early 2000s, by a group of patients in New Jersey who appeared in “Trauma: Life in the E.R.,” a series produced for Discovery’s Learning Channel. One appeals court ruled that the show qualified as news and deserved the same protections under the law. Many of the plaintiffs settled their cases individually, a lawyer for them said.

21世紀初，新澤西的一羣在探索傳播(Discovery)學習頻道的系列劇《創傷：急診室裏看人生》(“Trauma: Life in the E.R.”)中出鏡的傷患就曾經起訴紐約時報公司(New York Times Co.)侵犯隱私。上訴法院裁定，該節目符合新聞標準，應該得到同樣的法律保護。一名原告律師表示，許多原告後來都決定單獨解決他們的案件。

Mr. Wrong of “NY Med” said by email that he had not been sued over his medical shows before: “We put enormous behind the scenes effort into training our team and working in the medical environment.”

《紐約醫務組》的朗先生通過電子郵件稱自己的醫務紀實片此前從未受到起訴：“我們在幕後投入了巨大的努力，培訓我們的團隊要如何在醫療環境下工作。”

Mr. Chanko’s family had already settled a lawsuit against the private sanitation company whose truck backed over him by the time his widow saw the episode of “NY Med” featuring his case.

當錢科太太看到《紐約醫務組》中關於自己丈夫的案例那一集之前，錢科一家針對肇事卡車的業主——一家民營環衛公司的訴訟已經結案。

A couple of hours after watching her husband die on TV, Mrs. Chanko called her daughter-in-law Barbara, a health care ethicist at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs in Manhattan. Barbara Chanko, 55, remembers standing up in her office and saying, “If this happened, it’s got to be stopped.” When she watched the episode, she was shocked. “We protect patient privacy in everything we do,” she said. “I feel very betrayed by that medical staff for what they did.”

在從電視上看到自己丈夫死亡經過的幾小時後，錢科太太打電話給自己的兒媳，位於曼哈頓的美國退伍軍人事務部(United States Department of Veterans Affairs)的醫療倫理學家芭芭拉(Barbara)。55歲的芭芭拉·錢科記得自己當時站在辦公室裏說：“要是真的發生了這種事，必須加以制止。”在觀看那集節目後，她十分震驚。“我們會想盡一切辦法來保護傷患的隱私，”她說。“這些醫務人員的所作所爲讓我覺得自己受到了背叛。”

The Chankos’ son Eric Chanko, 53, a physician who works at a hospital in Ithaca, N.Y., said he, too, struggled to reconcile what he saw on the air with his own work. “They basically did everything that you’re taught in medical school not to do,” he said.

錢科家的兒子，53歲的埃裏克·錢科(Eric Chanko)是紐約州伊薩卡市的一名醫生，他表示他也很難接受節目中自己同行的做法。“他們基本上把醫學院裏教的不該做的事情都做全了，”他說。

In the aftermath of the broadcast, a lawyer for NewYork-Presbyterian tried to assure the family that no one could identify them from what was shown on TV. “Please be assured that your father’s and your family members’ images, likeness and other potentially identifying information were completely obscured in the episode,” the hospital’s associate general counsel, Caroline S. Fox, wrote in an emailed response to Kenneth Chanko’s complaint.

節目播出一個月後，紐約長老會醫院的一名律師向錢科一家保證觀衆們絕對不可能從影片中辨認出他們的身份。該院的副總法律顧問卡羅琳·S·福克斯(Caroline S. Fox)在回覆肯尼思·錢科投訴的電子郵件中寫道：“請放心，節目對您父親和您的家人的影像、肖像和其他潛在可能泄露身份的信息全都進行了模糊處理。”

Yet a few weeks later, Mrs. Chanko said she received a call from a woman who used to work as a pet sitter for her and her husband. “She said to me, ‘Do you watch “NY Med?” ' She said, ‘That was Mark, wasn’t it?’ She recognized him.”

然而，錢科太太說，沒出幾周，一個曾擔任她家寵物保姆的女子給她打電話。“她對我說：‘你看《紐約醫務組》了麼？那個不是馬克麼？’顯然她認出了他。”

Officials with the state’s health department concluded that NewYork-Presbyterian had violated Mr. Chanko’s rights and, indeed, its own privacy policy. “The patient was unaware and uninformed that he was being filmed and viewed by a camera crew while receiving medical treatment thus his privacy in receiving medical treatment was not ensured,” inspectors wrote in a citation released under New York’s Freedom of Information Law.

紐約州衛生部門官員的結論是，紐約長老會醫院侵犯了錢科先生的隱私權，實際上，他們還違反了他們自己的隱私政策。調查人員引用紐約的《信息自由法案》(Freedom of Information Law)稱：“傷患在接受醫護治療時被攝製組拍攝和觀察，未得到通知，也毫不知情，他在此期間的隱私沒有保障。”

New York regulators did not impose any sanctions on the hospital.

紐約的監管機構並未對該醫院施加任何制裁。

Federal health officials are still reviewing whether NewYork-Presbyterian was obliged to get permission from Mr. Chanko or his family before allowing a TV crew to film him.

聯邦衛生官員仍在審查紐約長老會醫院是否有義務在電視攝製組拍攝錢科先生之前先徵得他或家人的許可。

A State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan narrowed the Chankos’ lawsuit, but allowed some claims to proceed. In court filings, lawyers for the hospital and Dr. Schubl made the argument that the law prohibits medical professionals from sharing information about a patient only after he has been examined or treated. Because the “NY Med” film crew had shot video during Mr. Chanko’s treatment, they claimed, it was legal.

位於曼哈頓的紐約州最高法院的法官縮小了錢科一家的訴訟請求，但允許他們繼續主張一部分權利。在法庭文件中，醫院和舒布爾醫生的律師聲稱，按照法律規定，只有在傷患得到檢查或救治之後，才禁止醫療專業人員泄露傷患的信息。由於《紐約醫務組》的攝製組是在錢科先生的治療過程中拍攝的視頻，所以完全合法。

In November, an appellate panel issued a unanimous order dismissing the case. The conduct “was not so extreme and outrageous” to justify a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the judges wrote. The doctor and hospital, the judges added, did not breach their duty to avoid disclosing personal information “since no such information” was disclosed.

11月，受理上訴的小組一致裁定將此案駁回。法官寫道，本案中被告的行爲並不像原告聲稱的那樣“極端、無恥”地故意導致受害人的情緒困擾。並補充道，醫生和醫院沒有違背其避免泄露傷患個人信息的義務，因爲他們並未披露“此類信息”。

The family is working on an appeal. “If this ever got in front of a jury, I can’t imagine a jury not thinking a wrong was done to my father and to us,” Kenneth Chanko said. “Morally and ethically it’s not right, and I would also think that legally it can’t possibly be right.”

錢科一家仍在努力上訴中。“如果這個案件真的能送到陪審團面前，我無法想象會有陪審團成員認爲那些人對我父親和我們所做的一切都是正當的，”肯尼思·錢科說。“從道義上和道德上這都是不對的，我相信從法律上講也必將如此。”

Asked what she would do if the case fails, Mrs. Chanko said the family would not stop pushing for redress. “If there’s no applicable law, there most certainly should be,” she said. “I’m willing to just pursue it all the way. Why shouldn’t there be a law against this kind of thing?”

當被問及如果此案敗訴她會怎麼做時，錢科太太回答說他們一家不會放棄錯誤的糾正。“如果沒有適用的法律，那麼就該制定一部，”她說。“我願意一直追求這一目標。爲什麼不該有部法律來防止這種事情的發生呢？”