Latest on MJJC

I'm Suprised Dr. Treacy Would Do This

ivy;4039126 said:
The whole video was 4:40 and it had a lot of patient photos. Michael's photo was one of them and unfortunately the still picture of the video. Given his specialty, I think before and after photos are common. But I'm having hard time to believe Michael consented his photo to be taken during such treatment and especially under sedation. Perhaps there was some fine print on the documents he signed at his office allowing pictures but still seems to be such abuse of MJ's privacy.



I read on twitter today that Ireland doesn't have a HIPAA law.
Click to expand...

32 Recording
32.1 Audio, visual or photographic recordings of a patient, or a relative
of a patient, in which that person is identifiable should only be undertaken with their express consent. These recordings should be kept confidential as part of the patient’s record.

http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/News-a...hics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners.pdf

I seriously doubt that he has signed letter from MJ in which he agrees Treacy to use his photos for advertising his clinic.
 
Bubs;4039142 said:
32 Recording
32.1 Audio, visual or photographic recordings of a patient, or a relative
of a patient, in which that person is identifiable should only be undertaken with their express consent. These recordings should be kept confidential as part of the patient’s record.

http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/News-a...hics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners.pdf

I seriously doubt that he has signed letter from MJ in which he agrees Treacy to use his photos for advertising his clinic.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much legal 'clout' this guidance has? I hope the Estate at least take this up with the Irish Medical Council.

Even if Michael consented to the photos / film being made (eg for his private use), I doubt that he would consent to them being widely published like this, even for 'use' at a teaching event or conference. It does make you wonder what other footage PT has, and what further use it might be put to.
 
Bubs said:
I seriously doubt that he has signed letter from MJ in which he agrees Treacy to use his photos for advertising his clinic.
Click to expand...

I don't think he signed something knowingly either. I mentioned "fine print" in a several pages of medical notice such as a little notice that says procedures might be photographed which he might have signed without knowing.
 
ivy said:
I don't think he signed something knowingly either. I mentioned "fine print" in a several pages of medical notice such as a little notice that says procedures might be photographed which he might have signed without knowing.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this might very well be the case. Seems like MJ signed a lot of things without knowing all of what they said, or reading it thoroughly.
 
ivy said:
I don't think he signed something knowingly either. I mentioned "fine print" in a several pages of medical notice such as a little notice that says procedures might be photographed which he might have signed without knowing.
Click to expand...

J5master said:
Unfortunately this might very well be the case. Seems like MJ signed a lot of things without knowing all of what they said, or reading it thoroughly.
Click to expand...

It's possible that Michael signed something when he first became a patient of Dr. Treacy's. When I think about all the papers I sign when going to a new doctor, I never read the small print either. I just sign on the dotted line and hand it back to the receptionist.

BUT, Dr. Treacy claims to be Michael's friend. He knows that Michael spent a good part of his life being harassed about cosmetic facial changes, etc. Dr. Treacy SHOULD have enough common sense to realize that Michael would never, ever agree to have his face shown like that, under sedation, in the dermatologist's chair.

So, regardless if Michael signed a release consenting to this (probably unknowingly), Dr. Treacy should have enough respect for his friend to not show him in this way.

Dr. Treacy probably meant no harm, but he needs to think long and hard about why this is wrong. He should be able to figure it out. I can't believe it got to this point where he thought it was OK. If it were a doctor that had no relationship with Michael, I could see the disconnect there.... but Treacy has a history with Michael.

And that weird painting makes me think this guy has kind of an odd obsession... like "I" was Michael's doctor and I want to flaunt that.
 
Regarding your last statement I wouldn't be surprised.

But unfortunately when you sign these papers... That's kinda the point. It's an agreement. So the technical morality of it is iffy and I suppose he got into the "it's just business" mentality - or like you said, like everyone else that came in contact with MJ, they develop a pride complex. But You can't consider a contract null and void just because your someone's friend. You'd think someone would have the courtesy to make an exception but not in this case apparently. It's still a tricky line though because if most people signed the agreement then MJ technically shouldn't get special treatment if this doctor wanted to use his image.

But that's often the problem with agreements and contracts. People are often agreeing to things they don't want to agree to.
 
Last edited:
J5master said:
Regarding your last statement I wouldn't be surprised.

But unfortunately when you sign these papers... That's kinda the point. It's an agreement. So the technical morality of it is iffy and I suppose he got into the "it's just business" mentality - or like you said, like everyone else that came in contact with MJ, they develop a pride complex. But You can't consider a contract null and void just because your someone's friend. You'd think someone would have the courtesy to make an exception but not in this case apparently. It's still a tricky line though because if most people signed the agreement then MJ technically shouldn't get special treatment if this doctor wanted to use his image.

But that's often the problem with agreements and contracts. People are often agreeing to things they don't want to agree to.
Click to expand...

Exactly... I guess that's why a lawyer will always tell you to read the fine print. But Michael probably never anticipated his doctor (who he apparently regarded as his friend) would ever show him publically in a Power Point presentation, to promote his dermatology business. Even Arnold Klein never stooped that low. It's kind of in the same league as Murray recording Michael's voice when he was highly sedated.
 
I can get doctors need to take before and after treatment pictures to show their patients, other doctors the results and/differences but I'm having hard time believing Michael would agree allowing his face to be shown given the fact of his status publicly. It seems the damage was done but I hope the estate can do something. In the meantime Patrick Tracey has lost the support and credibility as professional he had from me at least, I can't speak for all the fan community but what he did was unethical and outrageous.
 
Last edited:
Whether Michael signed or didn't sign agreement allowing photos taken during procedures, but I seriously doubt that agreement included a line "we may use photos of you for promotional purposes".
---------------------------
"Education and training of health professionals is essential to the provision of safe and effective healthcare. When patient information is to be used for education and training purposes, you should anonymise it as far as possible. Where anonymisation is not possible or appropriate, you should make patients aware that
their identifiable information may be disclosed for such purposes. They should have the opportunity to object to disclosure of their information and any such objection must be respected."

Treacy is not educating other medical professionals, that video is entirely for promotional purposes.
I believe he has had enough other patients so there was no need to have to put in Michael's face to his video, especially when his face is known to millions of people, and MJ's face was instantly recognisable even when eyes were covered.


Ps, I just remembered that bodyguards wrote that when CM arrived to MJ's house first time, he made Murray to sign confidentiality agreement (which he has since broken many times). So CM was under Hipa and confidentiality agreement, so I was wondering if Treacy too signed one?
 
Bubs said:
Whether Michael signed or didn't sign agreement allowing photos taken during procedures, but I seriously doubt that agreement included a line "we may use photos of you for promotional purposes".
---------------------------
"Education and training of health professionals is essential to the provision of safe and effective healthcare. When patient information is to be used for education and training purposes, you should anonymise it as far as possible. Where anonymisation is not possible or appropriate, you should make patients aware that
their identifiable information may be disclosed for such purposes. They should have the opportunity to object to disclosure of their information and any such objection must be respected."

Treacy is not educating other medical professionals, that video is entirely for promotional purposes.
I believe he has had enough other patients so there was no need to have to put in Michael's face to his video, especially when his face is known to millions of people, and MJ's face was instantly recognisable even when eyes were covered.
Click to expand...
Well, the anonymisation obviously failed... I guess he could try to argue that because this is apparently part of a presentation at a professional conference, it falls under the banner of 'educational purposes', but the fact that he put it on YouTube would not really help his case. And indeed, there is of course nothing educational about the picture either. It purely seems to be a case of him showing off ("look who I treated!").

Given how private Michael was, I cannot imagine he would agree to something like this. If he did sign something without his awareness (the fine print explanation), then that is still a breach of ethics. Patients have to be able to give their informed consent, you can't just trick them into signing something they are not fully aware of like a cheap salesman.

I guess we have to wait for him to respond, but I think the fact that he quickly made the video private and has not said anything about it since speaks volumes. Disappointing that someone who said he admired and befriended Michael would do this, but the saddest part is that it is not surprising either....
 
SoCav said:
Well, the anonymisation obviously failed... I guess he could try to argue that because this is apparently part of a presentation at a professional conference, it falls under the banner of 'educational purposes', but the fact that he put it on YouTube would not really help his case. And indeed, there is of course nothing educational about the picture either. It purely seems to be a case of him showing off ("look who I treated!").

Given how private Michael was, I cannot imagine he would agree to something like this. If he did sign something without his awareness (the fine print explanation), then that is still a breach of ethics. Patients have to be able to give their informed consent, you can't just trick them into signing something they are not fully aware of like a cheap salesman.

I guess we have to wait for him to respond, but I think the fact that he quickly made the video private and has not said anything about it since speaks volumes. Disappointing that someone who said he admired and befriended Michael would do this, but the saddest part is that it is not surprising either....
Click to expand...

Michael wouldn't have signed agreement if Treacy explained it to Michael that his photos will be used for "educational purposes".

It says clearly here that they have to make their patients aware:
"Where anonymisation is not possible or appropriate, you should make patients aware that their identifiable information may be disclosed for such purposes. They should have the opportunity to object to disclosure of their information and any such objection must be respected."

I read it the way that Treacy should have read fine print (if there was such) to Michael because thats what Irish Medical Council requires.

Treacy is a little show off, if you look at his website. There are photos of him with Bono, and other famous people, so I think he is star-struck like many others before him.
 
Bubs said:
I read it the way that Treacy should have read fine print (if there was such) to Michael because thats what Irish Medical Council requires. .
Click to expand...

It will be hard to proove that he didn`t it.
 
When I had my eyebrows tattooed due to a medical condition I got before and after photos taken. These we're to go in a book and stay in a book to show other patients the lady's work. I don't remember seeing any actual faces in her pictures just the eyebrows so people couldn't be identified. Also the data protection act here in the uk would prevent her publishing these photos anywhere without explicit consent from the individuals concerned. I think Dr. Treacly has done something medical unethical and possibly illegal.
 
I’ve spoken with some fan groups on FB who are saying they have contacted Treacy and he is claiming to have posted the pictures by accident. They are saying he is on his way to a dermatology conference in Brazil and the pictures were meant to be used for his presentation there. Somehow they were posted online mistakenly. I don't know if I'm buying the story however.
 
Last edited:
Victory22;4039314 said:
I’ve spoken with some fans groups on FB who are saying they have contacted Treacy and he is claiming to have posted the pictures by accident. They are saying he is on his way to a dermatology conference in Brazil and the pictures were meant to be used for his presentation there. Somehow they were posted online mistakenly. I don't know if I'm buying the story however.
Click to expand...
LOL "posted them by accident". Suuuureee. Like we're all supposed to believe that.:smilerolleyes:
 
neverland-ranchdressing said:
LOL "posted them by accident". Suuuureee. Like we're all supposed to believe that.:smilerolleyes:
Click to expand...
Even if we assume that's true (which I find very difficult to believe too), what's his purpose for showing this photo in a presentation for his colleagues in the field of dermatology? These are not close-up pictures that show how he conducts a certain procedure. It's purely him showing off. It's almost hilarious that he went through the trouble of blocking out MJ's eyes to make it seem as if he's wanting to preserve the anonymity of his patient, when even people who hardly know MJ can tell that's him and the inclusion of the picture in and of itself screams "look at me I worked for Michael Jackson!"
 
SoCav said:
Even if we assume that's true (which I find very difficult to believe too), what's his purpose for showing this photo in a presentation for his colleagues in the field of dermatology? These are not close-up pictures that show how he conducts a certain procedure. It's purely him showing off. It's almost hilarious that he went through the trouble of blocking out MJ's eyes to make it seem as if he's wanting to preserve the anonymity of his patient, when even people who hardly know MJ can tell that's him and the inclusion of the picture in and of itself screams "look at me I worked for Michael Jackson!"
Click to expand...
Oh I know. He made it so blatantly obvious too that it was Michael. If he REALLY wanted to keep Michael anonymous,he should've blurred the whole face out,but I doubt he was gonna do that.
s0F6T3i.gif
 
Michael attracted some of the worst people to him! Why the hell is that? I'll never understand.
 
Victory22;4039314 said:
I’ve spoken with some fan groups on FB who are saying they have contacted Treacy and he is claiming to have posted the pictures by accident. They are saying he is on his way to a dermatology conference in Brazil and the pictures were meant to be used for his presentation there. Somehow they were posted online mistakenly. I don't know if I'm buying the story however.
Click to expand...

He's back-peddling now. What else can he do but try to worm his way out of this situation. He knows he messed up. His ego got the best of him; trying to flaunt his famous client in a clever way - but it backfired. Hope he learned his lesson.
 
Victory22;4039314 said:
I’ve spoken with some fan groups on FB who are saying they have contacted Treacy and he is claiming to have posted the pictures by accident. They are saying he is on his way to a dermatology conference in Brazil and the pictures were meant to be used for his presentation there. Somehow they were posted online mistakenly. I don't know if I'm buying the story however.
Click to expand...

:sigh: I'm definitely NOT buying it! The process of posting a clip to YouTube or pics, etc. on Facebook isn't a one step deal. By the time a person goes through and sorts video and/or pics to upload (and type a narrative/comment/what-have-you) to Facebook, YT, twitter, etc., it is very deliberate what is posted. There are no "oops"; he did that on purpose and he knows it.

That idiot is in damage control mode right now, trying to save his own ass.
 
He's saying now on twitter he didn't mean to make those pictures public, those were supposed to be private and he apologized. And we were born yesterday, do people really think we're stupid? Tracey is obviously trying not being sued by the estate, meaning that or not (he meant it, let's be real) he violated the ethical code doctors must have for their patients.
 
I'm speechless. It absolutely disgusts me how Michael was treated. What is it with this world? Why do we treat the people who bring so much joy and happiness so terribly, simply because they're different?

I hope the MJ Estate get all over this asshole, point this out to the proper authorities and help ruin his career. He violated an INCREDIBLY important code and should NOT put any more patients at risk. Michael Jackson has an incredibly unique face, there's just about no way you can use his face and fall within the privacy code. Ugh, I'm so f**ked off right now :mat:
 
So he posted them by accident. yeah right. yet still admits he was going to use the pics at the conference. like thats an ok thing to do!
 
HIStoric said:
I'm speechless. It absolutely disgusts me how Michael was treated. What is it with this world? Why do we treat the people who bring so much joy and happiness so terribly, simply because they're different?:
Click to expand...

That's one of the horrible traits of humans. They will belittle others; children get bullied in schools because they are different - to the point of suicide; they become the butt of jokes to others, etc. It's been going on for ages. You would think that people would learn something through the years, but it appears not.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
So he posted them by accident. yeah right. yet still admits he was going to use the pics at the conference. like thats an ok thing to do!
Click to expand...

A conference, yeah that's a very private setting right there. . . :smilerolleyes: He just played himself when he did that! He planned to breach Mike's privacy from the get-go. I'm sure he won't have Mike's eyes "blocked" when he gives his presentation. :(

Edit: He can't stop people from snapping pics of his presentation, either. Who DOESN'T have a camera phone in this day and age?
 
HIStoric said:
I'm speechless. It absolutely disgusts me how Michael was treated. What is it with this world? Why do we treat the people who bring so much joy and happiness so terribly, simply because they're different?

I hope the MJ Estate get all over this asshole, point this out to the proper authorities and help ruin his career. He violated an INCREDIBLY important code and should NOT put any more patients at risk. Michael Jackson has an incredibly unique face, there's just about no way you can use his face and fall within the privacy code. Ugh, I'm so f**ked off right now :mat:
Click to expand...


Michael wasn't one to sue a lot of people although he very much could have, but I think his Estate should start sueing people left and right. I would rather have them spend money on lawsuits than on holograms... People like this "doctor" should not get away with things like that.
 
I want to know what legal actions have been taken. Did anyone contact the Irish Medical Board? He had no right to take the photos to a conference either, unless Michael signed to have his photos used for educational purposes or something like that. Notice he goes to Brazil to show them off. Why didn't he do it in England or Ireland? I am so disappointed with this man, because I thought he was one of the good and ethical doctors. Why did he take a photo during sedation? This is not a before and after photo which is kept in the patient's file. It does not even look like a photo showing a procedure being done, which would be more beneficial to a conference. He took this man's photo and kept it for personal reasons.

This just makes me worry about my own doctors and what they could do with our own information.
 
Petrarose said:
I am so disappointed with this man, because I thought he was one of the good and ethical doctors. Why did he take a photo during sedation? This is not a before and after photo which is kept in the patient's file. It does not even look like a photo showing a procedure being done, which would be more beneficial to a conference. He took this man's photo and kept it for personal reasons.
Click to expand...
I also wonder about that. I doesn't look like a before/after photo. Michael wears different clothes in the close-up and the pillow looks white. Did he take numerous pictures on every single visit? It's a scary, creepy thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top