EDITORIAL: The Punjab government’s decision to mandate body-worn cameras for nurses, ward staff, security guards and pharmacy personnel—while pointedly excluding doctors—raises troubling questions about intent, logic and respect for patient rights.
Announced as a response to complaints about staff misbehaviour and alleged negligence, the move appears less a considered reform and more a reflexive, poorly thought-out measure, possibly shaped by ill-advised counsel rather than informed consultation. A glaring flaw in the decision is the complete absence of stakeholder engagement. As highlighted by the Pakistan Medical Association (PMA) and the Young Doctors Association (YDA), no professional forum appears to have been consulted at any stage.
The PMA president’s description of the move as “illogical, impractical and insane” may sound harsh, but it reflects genuine alarm within the medical community about the implications of such surveillance-driven policies for healthcare delivery.
At the heart of their opposition lies the issue of privacy and confidentiality—cornerstones of ethical medical practice. Hospitals are not public squares; they are spaces where patients disclose deeply personal details about their bodies, illnesses and lives.
Routine or continuous recording in wards—particularly in gynaecology, labour rooms, psychiatric units and emergency departments—would amount to a direct assault on patient dignity.
Concerns that footage could be stored or accessed by IT departments, potentially without explicit patient consent, only heighten fears of misuse, data leaks and voyeurism. In a country already grappling with weak data protection and cyber security frameworks, these concerns are far from hypothetical.
Equally concerning is the selective targeting of nurses and paramedical staff, which creates the impression of scapegoating the most vulnerable tiers of the healthcare workforce.
Nurses and ward staff already work under pressure with long hours, inadequate pay, and frequent exposure to verbal and physical abuse. Subjecting them to constant surveillance risks further demoralisation and may aggravate staff shortages rather than improve patient care.
It is noteworthy that this decision coincides with reports from Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), where body-worn cameras are being tried in a limited and time-bound pilot at a small number of hospitals. There, the cameras are intended to protect staff from rising violence and aggression, not to monitor them for alleged negligence. They are activated only in threatening situations, with clear notification to those being recorded.
Consent, proportionality and strict purpose limitation underpin the NHS initiative. The contrast highlights how context, safeguards and intent matter profoundly when introducing surveillance into healthcare settings.
If the government’s objective is genuinely to improve accountability and patient care, it would do better to strengthen hospital complaint mechanisms, invest in staff training, improve staffing ratios, enforce existing professional regulations and address chronic underfunding.
Surveillance, especially when imposed without consultation or consent, is a blunt instrument ill-suited to healing environments. However well-intentioned, it risks doing more harm than good.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments