2024-10-18 09:00:00
The chairwoman of Senate 3 has rejected a complaint by Senecura GmbH against the magazine “Dossier” as obviously unfounded (Note: In the complaint procedure, the chairmen of the Senate have the opportunity to reject a complaint as clearly unfounded by means of a resolution – the complainant can appeal this decision to the Senate).
The complaint concerned the article “Starving in the Home” and the online article “Patient advocate makes serious allegations against Senecura and home supervision”.
The articles reported serious allegations against the SeneCura Group. The main issue was a patient who died in a nursing home for senior citizens in Hard in Vorarlberg. His relatives claimed that he was not given enough food and his wounds were not treated.
Senecura GmbH essentially complained that the allegations described in the “Dossier” articles were incorrect, that the complainant’s statement had not been taken into account and that the reputation of the care facility had been damaged. She also criticized the publication of a picture of the deceased man showing him in an emaciated state, seeing this as a violation of personality and privacy.
The Chairperson first noted that the article concerns a topic that is of particular interest to the public. Revealing any grievances in the healthcare system is highly relevant to public discourse (see point 10 of the Code of Ethics). Freedom of the press extends particularly far here.
The chairwoman also noted that the author of the contributions confronted the complainant with a comprehensive list of questions about the case of the deceased patient.
The complainant responded with a letter in which it was first stated that no information could be provided on individual cases due to data protection reasons. This was followed by a general passage about trust in the employees of Senecura GmbH. Finally, it was also emphasized that the family did not receive the deceased patient’s care documentation because they did not give any specific reasons for the release and that the personal rights of the deceased were more important than the interests of the surviving relatives.
The complainant’s argument was reproduced in the print article, but it was not stated that the complainant did not provide any information about specific cases for data protection reasons. The general statements about trust in the employees were also not published.
The chairwoman does not see this as a violation of point 2.3 of the Code of Ethics, according to which accusations may only be made if a statement has been obtained from the accused institution. The author behaved in an exemplary manner; the comprehensive list of questions for the complainant was drawn up in great detail and was sent to her long before the article was published. The complainant’s specific statements were also included in the article accordingly.
In the chair’s opinion, however, it does not matter that the data protection notice and the general statements about the complainants’ trust in the staff were not published: the complainant has no right to have a statement published in full or verbatim. When reproducing a statement, journalists have a certain degree of discretion, which was not exceeded in this specific case. From a journalistic point of view, it seems obvious to the chairman that the author refrained from publishing the complainant’s general statements and concentrated on the specific information about the deceased man’s case.
In addition, the chairwoman emphasizes that the author has carefully researched the abuses described. She not only spoke to the relatives of the deceased patient, but also to other doctors, and also critically examined the report on the case that the Vorarlberg state home inspectorate had commissioned. She also pointed out other serious grievances in connection with a death in a SeneCura Group nursing home in Salzburg.
There were also investigations by the public prosecutor’s office into the case in Vorarlberg and significant allegations from the Vorarlberg patient advocate, which the author dealt with in the follow-up online article. On top of that, the SeneCura Group itself admitted that there was a shortage of staff in the affected home in Hard and that the care documentation for the deceased man was incomplete. The fact that the criminal investigation was ultimately discontinued does not change the fact that the SeneCura Group has been heavily criticized and that it is relevant for the public to be informed about it.
In the chairwoman’s opinion, it is important for public discourse that the media gives those people who have become victims of serious abuses in the healthcare system the opportunity to address the public. It is also clear to readers that the allegations against SeneCura made in the articles are the subjective perceptions of the relatives or the assessment of the patient advocate. There is therefore no violation of the requirement to reproduce news conscientiously and correctly (see point 2.1 of the Code of Ethics).
Against this background, the chairwoman does not assume that the reputation of the SeneCura Group will be impaired (point 5 of the code of ethics). A company that is accused of serious grievances by numerous people and institutions must accept reporting on them, especially where these alleged grievances are diametrically opposed to the company’s actual task – namely the caring care and support of patients.
In the chair’s opinion, the photo, which shows the now deceased patient with an emaciated upper body, does not constitute a violation of personality or privacy within the meaning of points 5 and 6 of the Code of Honor. The relatives who are allowed to protect the deceased’s personality postmortem have expressly consented to the publication of the images. In addition, the patient’s head cannot be seen in the picture, and in the article the man’s last name is always abbreviated to the first initial letter. Furthermore, the publication of the picture serves to inform the public about the man’s precarious health condition in a powerful way and thereby wake them up.
Since in the present case it cannot be assumed that there was a violation of the code of ethics, the chairperson rejected the complaint as clearly unfounded. The complainant did not raise any objection to this within the two-week period.
COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
The Press Council is an association that promotes responsible journalism and includes the most important journalist and publisher associations in Austria. The members of the Senate of the Press Council are independent and independent.
In the present case, Senate 3 of the Press Council received a complaint from an affected institution. The media owner of the magazine “Dossier” has recognized the arbitration jurisdiction of the Press Council. In the complaint process, the Press Council is an arbitration tribunal. Code of Civil Procedure.
1729242367
#grievances #healthcare #system #relevant #public
