In the opinion of the Chancellor a situation where a person has to carry out their personal hygiene procedures or tolerate them being carried out in view of other patients cannot be considered to be in line with the principle of human dignity as it infringes upon the dignity of the person, and therefore such situations should be avoided. Therefore, the Chancellor recommended to ensure that screens or other means helping to ensure the privacy of the patient are used when carrying out hygiene procedures or other intimate procedures, and that the window of the reception room should be covered. In one institution90 the full names of the patients present in the centre during the inspection visit were revealed by placing their name plates on the wall next to the doors of the wards. In the opinion of the Chancellor, such an activity interferes with the patient’s right to privacy because this way third persons can read the names of the patients and obtain an overview of who is receiving the nursing care service at the particular moment. This constitutes disclosure of personal data in the meaning of the Personal Data Protection Act and, therefore, the institution is obliged to process personal data only in conformity with the objective of the processing and to the smallest extent possible.91 Therefore, the Chancellor recommended to stop disclosure of full names of the patients without consent. Both Tartu University Hospital and Järva County Hospital had installed extensive video surveillance for monitoring of the patients. Similarly to the psychiatric hospitals, the Chancellor found that such extensive restriction of human dignity and the right to privacy without a person’s consent and without consideration of its necessity and justification in each case cannot be purposeful. On this basis, the Chancellor recommended to ensure that in a situation where a person has not given a consent for using video surveillance in a ward the necessity and extent of applying video surveillance will be considered on a case-by-case basis.92 Vändra Health Centre. See also the Chancellor’s 2010 Overview, p 17-18. 92 In the interests of transparency and verifiability, such a decision should be made in a reproducible form in writing in each case and in respect of each person. The decision to apply video surveillance should be valid only within a specific period after which it should be reviewed. 90 91 44