Regarding the Marfan syndrome image, I looked into it as well as I could. It seems to be allowed for re-use per the terms of the Creative Commons license in the source article. I changed the description of the image on Wikimedia Commons to be "13 year old female" instead of woman, but that doesn't help at all. The use of the image in the Wikipedia article bothers me a lot, as she is an almost entirely naked 13 year old girl with an IQ of 50 according to the research article. I wish that it was not uploaded to Commons to begin with. Doc James was the user who uploaded according to the log. I can't find any reason to get it removed or deleted though. If anyone else can look into it, as Neotarf mentioned, I would be grateful. In my previous job, I worked for a state services program that cared for children with debilitating congenital medical conditions, and this photograph makes me feel very uncomfortable and sad because it seems exploitative to show this female child naked from three views on Wikipedia, but I don't know what to do about it.
--FeralOink
As far as consent, I have only seen two types of medical consent forms. One is a consent to treatment when the client first enters the system. No provider will treat someone without that. There are also specialized consent forms for various procedures, to show that the client has received information about a particular procedure and understands the risks beforehand, that is, "informed consent". Medical consent forms will often, perhaps almost always, have a section about photographs, especially if it's a teaching hospital. The implication is always that any photos would be used for training purposes. Here is a sample medical consent form that has exactly that sort of language: "I agree to have photographs taken for medical study or research", and also a phrase that the patient will not be identifiable. http://www.bestmedicalforms.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Diagnostic-1.jpg In my experience, people do not read such forms, they just sign them. Perhaps they are in distress, or perhaps they believe they must sign in order to get treatment. So I don't believe a medical consent form gives the kind of consent needed to upload a photo from a medical journal for a WP article.
I agree the photo is disturbing on many levels. One is that there is no way of knowing whether the subject is being exploited. Years ago, western medical texts used to be full of photos that were obviously from socio-economically disadvantaged areas. So, "legal in some country in the Global South" is probably a poor standard to apply to choosing medical photos. Also, imagine you or someone in your family being newly diagnosed with this condition and coming across this photo that shows someone with the condition having a mental deficiency, which is obviously not part of marfan, and perhaps also being treated in a questionable manner. Maybe "portrays the disease accurately" and "portrays a person with the condition with dignity" would be better standards to follow.
The article is still lacking clear illustrations for the eye and aorta conditions that go with it. There are much better ones online, but not with the right copyright status. Also scoliosis--the WP article has several good illustrations for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoliosis
This still leaves the original problem unaddressed, which is how to find copyright-free medical images. The Marfan Foundation links to a series of very positive "What does Marfan Syndrome look like" images on Flickr, but again they are copyrighted. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalmarfanfoundation/albums/72157612643340... Perhaps the ultimate solution will be to partner with some of these organizations that are concerned with patient advocacy and get them to upload some of their photos.
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:56 AM, Ellie Kesselman myindigolife@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the Marfan syndrome image, I looked into it as well as I could. It seems to be allowed for re-use per the terms of the Creative Commons license in the source article. I changed the description of the image on Wikimedia Commons to be "13 year old female" instead of woman, but that doesn't help at all. The use of the image in the Wikipedia article bothers me a lot, as she is an almost entirely naked 13 year old girl with an IQ of 50 according to the research article. I wish that it was not uploaded to Commons to begin with. Doc James was the user who uploaded according to the log. I can't find any reason to get it removed or deleted though. If anyone else can look into it, as Neotarf mentioned, I would be grateful. In my previous job, I worked for a state services program that cared for children with debilitating congenital medical conditions, and this photograph makes me feel very uncomfortable and sad because it seems exploitative to show this female child naked from three views on Wikipedia, but I don't know what to do about it.
--FeralOink
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap