PS Thanks for the debate. It has clarified some ideas for me.
Things you find stressful that other people don't notice.
Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
SubscribeMy mum is 86, and I am her next of kin. I also have POA, but she is fully compos mentis, so this is not really relevant. Mum has been referred to a hospital doctor for investigations into an ongoing problem.
I am currently on holiday, and my husband went home to run some errands, and found a message on the answerphone. It was from the hospital, asking me to call, saying that it was 'about Mrs X (my mum)' with no other information.
Long story short, the call was because the receptionist had been unable to contact her, and wondered if I had an alternative number, or could ask her to contact the hospital.
Am I right to be concerned about this? What about my mother's right to confidentiality? The message was picked up by my husband, but for all anyone knows, he could have picked it up it in front of other people, he is not the next of kin, and even though I am, that does not give me the right to know my mother's medical arrangements.
As it is, the appointment is not about something that my mum was keeping to herself, but she has every right to do so, surely?
If this is the general policy, what about a message about a pregnancy that is picked up by an abusive father, or all sorts of other possible awkward situations?
I asked the receptionist about this, and she seemed to think that as she hadn't given details of the appointment it was ok. I pointed out that I had no right to know about the appointment at all and that answerphone messages are not private, but although she said she would speak to the consultant about the policy, I'm not convinced that she fully grasped what I was getting at.
What do you think?
PS Thanks for the debate. It has clarified some ideas for me.
Objecting to what someone has said is not the same as objecting that they have said it. You exercised your freedom of speech and so did I. Neither of us tried to stop the other from saying what they wanted to say. We just disagreed about the subject.
Arguing is not anti free speech.
Baggs Criticising someone’s stance is not different from personal criticism, IMHO.
Sorry I am not going to continue arguing with you.
I find your criticism a bit much, coming from someone who in the past has spoken out in favour of free speech & against ad hominem arguments.
spice101, I get that and agree while also getting the OP's concern about confidentiality. I think that though it is there for good reasons the confidentiality rule can be a blunt instrument. That doesn’t make it a bad thing to base our behaviour on.
It didn’t read as mild to me, janea. That might be my fault. Quite a few people complain about others not reading whole threads and so on and that gets noisome.
I did not criticise you. I said that I thought the stance you were taking was over-censorious. Perhaps I should’ve made that clearer by saying that the criticism of other people's posting techniques when they are not breaking Gransnet forum posting guidelines is censorious.
Some people scoff at this difference (between criticism of a person and criticism of the point of view they are defending; after all, one can argue a case one doesn’t agree with for debating purposes) but it’s an important distinction to make and I am usually pretty careful about it.
I don't see anything wrong with this situation. A message was left asking you to call them about your Mum. There was no information about the patient or the medical matter- or even that it was your Mum as far as an outsider would probably know. You have obviously been listed as a contact, presumably by your mother and, to me, this gives consent for you to know about her medical matters if necessary, however, in this case there was no information given about the matter - just a request to contact the caller.
Anyone has the right to keep things to themselves, but in your case your mother has already given consent by giving your details as a contact. While the situation may not be perfect, if the boot was on the other foot and there was a need for you - or anyone else - to be contacted and were not then you would be displeased about that.
Baggs so have I got this right?
When I say I’m mildly irritated when people repeat what I’ve said a few posts back on the same thread, that is over-censorious.
But when you make a personal criticism of me , that’s ok??
I tend to agree with baggs.
I don't want to have to check if what I'm posting is acceptable to everyone here, or thank people for having a similar opinion to mine.
At least we agree about the meaning and derivation of censorious, janea.
In my opinion your views on this thread seemed prescriptive about how others should post and “fault-finding” if your prescription was not followed. To me that is censorious for an informal chat forum.
I have no objection to anyone conducting their responses in what you seem to regard as the correct way. I don’t mind a more relaxed approach though whereas it seems you do.
Baggs According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'censorious' is the adjective derived from the noun 'censor' and the verb 'to censor'.
A censor, it says, inter alia, is 'person expressing opinions on other's morals and conduct'.
To censor means to act as a censor, or to make deletions or changes.
'Censorious' means 'fault-finding, severely critical'.
It doesn't give a definition for 'over-censorious' but I think it is an exaggerated and unjustified criticism of anything I have ever written on Gransnet.
*say, not saw
I used the word censorious to mean "expressing censure [not censoring] or blame" or "fault-finding" (Chambers) after reading posts that I thought were complaining in tone, where "censure" means to form or give an unfavourable opinion or judgment of/to blame/to condemn as wrong.
If that's not what was happening then I must have misunderstood.
----
Your point about not minding something not being projectable is true, doodledog. It is something one can learn though. I saw this as someone who has. Things on Gransnet threads used to upset me a lot more than they do now. That could be thick skinnedness but I think it's more about detachment.
---
I'm glad someone gets it oops. I was thinking a little while ago also that when it is a very long thread, even if one reads it all, it's easy to miss something because of not maintaining concentration. That happens to me anyway.
I agree that it would be easier if the OP's replies stood out more, Oopsadaisy.
I wonder if because we see our own posts in pink it might makes us feel that others should be able to see how often we have said things, when it's less easy for everyone else because the OP posts don't stand out.
I think that when a thread runs to 6 pages, the next poster just reads the OP and responds to that, they don’t bother to read all of the other posts,
if they did they would know that quite often the problem has either been resolved 2 pages back or that the OP has provided further info and of course that others have all said exactly the same thing.
It would be helpful if the OPs replies were also in green......
Baggs, the fact that you didn't care can't be projected onto others, though. I don't think you can assume that 'it's not about being thick skinned' (or it's not about anything else) either, really. There have been posts from people saying that they are leaving Gransnet because they feel ignored, so it does matter to some people, which is all I am saying.
I also think that you are misinterpreting janeainsworth's points, and putting words into her mouth.
I think you are taking an over-censorious stance and apparently assuming people do it on purpose.
I don’t censor other people’s posts Baggs.
Nor did I imply that people were repeating others’ posts on purpose.
Discourtesy isn't usually intentional - if it were, that would be deliberate rudeness rather than mere discourtesy.
Baggs, you mention people feeling ignored, but surely the worst way to be ignored is to take time to post a considered reply to someone, only to see that someone else posts the same thing five minutes later and people pick up on that response but not on yours?
This has happened to me a few times, doodledog. It didn't bother me in the slightest and I certainly didn't care if what I'd said —note that I'm saying "what I'd said" rather than "I"— appeared to have been ignored. It's just as likely it had simply been missed. On a forum containing thousands and thousands of members appearing to have what one has said ignored or missed is really not a big deal.
It's not about being thick-skinned; more about not taking accidentals of post similarities personally as if someone was doing it deliberately to annoy you. Even if someone was, why would one care about someone with that attitude? Shrug, hey-ho and move on works pretty well.
I think the point on this thread in particular is not so much that people have the same point of view. After all, there are really only two points of view - that I was right to be concerned or that I wasn't .
My point was that it would be discourteous of me, as the OP, not to answer questions that people asked on the thread, but I lost count of how often I was saying the same thing only to see, two posts later, another person asking the same questions.
Baggs, you mention people feeling ignored, but surely the worst way to be ignored is to take time to post a considered reply to someone, only to see that someone else posts the same thing five minutes later and people pick up on that response but not on yours?
As someone who has posted on forums for a long time I am fairly thick skinned, but for those who may have lurked for a while before plucking up the courage to join in it can be really hurtful to have this happen, and people have posted to say that they are leaving as a result. At best, it can be off-putting, and discourage people from bothering to say more than 'I agree', which defeats the point of a discussion forum.
Yes, on sympathy threads there will be repetition, as there is not much more to be said, really, but people want to show solidarity and express their condolences. I don't think that is the same thing at all.
Anyway, I am not the thread police, and it seems that there are two schools of thought about reading the threads, so I'm sure everyone will continue to do whatever they think best.
Repeats don't matter on the threads on which they most commonly occur: those expressing sympathy.
Hardly light-hearted!
Not if the repeater doesn't know they've repeated something someone else has said. I think you are taking an over-censorious stance and apparently assuming people do it on purpose. I daresay that happens sometimes but I think that's rare.
I've often come across several posts in the same thread essentially saying the same thing. It has never bothered me when I happened to be the first to say something. I think most Gransnet posters (most people in fact) are naturally polite.
Besides, the same thing is never said in the exact same words.
Baggs yes I do think it’s discourteous to the forum to simply repeat what another poster has already said, without adding anything to the discussion or offering a different perspective.
Of course threads vary in their seriousness, and perhaps it doesn’t matter so much on the lighthearted ones.
My point is this, janea: is it discourteous to respond to an OP that has plenty of meat in it without reading the responses of other people? I don't think it is. Not on a casual chat forum. It might be on scientific paper terms but Gransnet isn't in that category.
Furthermore chatting on a thread on Gransnet is not the same as chatting with a group of people in the same room.
It is from reading some (relatively few and, admittedly, not recently) threads on Mumsnet that I've come to these conclusions. It appeared to be common practice, especially on AIBU threads, for people to mainly just reply to the OP. That, in my view, is not rude.
I agree about your crossed posts comment IF you happen to notice. Moving away from your screen (for whatever multifarious reason) after pressing 'Post' and not noticing that you post has crossed with another saying the same thing is not discourteous. You might as well complain about "being ignored" when it's nothing of the kind. Which, as I'm sure you know, some people have done.
Baggs Why does it bother people if what they've said is repeated by someone else? Do people really think that no-one else will think the same as them?
Of course not. But it’s courteous to acknowledge that someone else has already had the same thought as you, and that you agree with them.
Or, if you post something and someone else’s similar post has appeared while you were busy composing yours, to add ‘crossed posts’.
Or, if it’s a very long thread with many pages which you haven’t had time to read, to preface your post with ‘not read the whole thread but’ in case someone else has already made the same point as you.
Just good manners, really.
An OP like the one on this thread is quite enough to be answering by itself.
Why does it bother people if what they've said is repeated by someone else? Do people really think that no-one else will think the same as them?
Also, what is wrong with just answering the OP? Why should that only be available to the first one or two commenters and then every subsequent poster be required to read everyone else's posts? That's essentially what people are expecting when they say others must read the whole thread. I think that's unreasonable.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.