This court case is not about enforcing rules (we know that rules based cultures leave plenty of room for abuse). It's about driving values. Have some mechanism for blowing off steam, but when you're with a patient you give that person the best care you can.
When clinicians let their empathy slip you get real, severe, abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbourne_View_hospital_abu...
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060502043818/htt...
It seems very pat. It sounds like everyone in the theatre was ripping into the guy, which suggests a backstory in pre-op. And then the recorder was accidentally left on.
I wasn't in the room, obviously, and there's probably much more information that influenced the jury. But still, weird.
Edit: the recorder wasn't "accidentally" left on, the patient turned it on before the operation to capture post-op instructions.
Sometimes it's not possible to do this in an elaborate surgery where you have to remove all of your clothing.
I couldn't care less about the surgeon's personality (bedside manner) or what he/she thinks about me personally as long as he performs his job well.
I think a much bigger problem in the medical field is the lack of performance review. I remember reading one study that provided video recordings of gastric bypass surgery to a panel of experts (professors, top-rated surgeons, etc.). The experts did not know who performed the surgeries, but they gave each surgery video a "quality" score. After a year, the outcome of each patient was compared to the quality score, and strong correlations were noted.
Yet despite rankings of universities, professors, cars, computers, books, and anything else one could possibly rank, you won't find rankings of how good surgeons or anesthesiologists are at their job. Oh sure, you'll get some subjective metric of how people feel about the doctor (sites like HealthGrades), but it's been shown this really corresponds to how personable the doctor is.
Those two things go together most of the time though. Someone who doesn't like you will simply not do as good of a job. People are not robots.
Just because language is disagreeable does not mean someone should pay for it.
How would you feel if you went in for surgery and met the doctors and nurses, and afterward none of them will even talk to you?
Also, it sounds like the jurists are as cynical as we are. Maybe they were facing a "12 angry men" situation and were compromising with each other to get it over before dinner?
Also is it normal for the Jury to say "Alice thinks he should get everything, Bob says nothing, well damned if I know - give him a weighted mean"?
It seems like that's a law that's going to be more important as recording devices become ubiquitous. Will Virginia change to a "two-party consent" state, or will other states join Virginia? Or we just remain a landmass where recording others is allowed in some places but not other places?
How soon until we have an iWatch that's always streaming audio and video to a cloud server? (Dependent question: How much energy is used to record an image from a sensor, process, frame, and route over Wifi or Cell?)
Also, there's the moral question of recording another's audio without their consent. How do we decide (or re-decide) what the moral rules for recording should be?
One-party consent certainly wouldn't apply if, for instance, your friend made a call using your telephone and you recorded the ensuing conversation. Does this situation differ simply because the patient was physically present?
Professionalism be damned, whether you're a disgruntled barista or a disgruntled anaesthesiologist, everybody needs to be able to vent by ripping into their customers sometimes.
That's what the break room is for. But not when on the clock.
If you're so disgruntled by your work, you should find different work to do; a job that doesn't make you disgruntled.