You might have missed it, but semi-obscured by the unfolding drama over phone-hacking at News of the World, other - I think more interesting - privacy issues have been in the news and on our screens in the past few weeks.

The balance of human rights - including privacy - in the instances I'm thinking of are altogether more complex.

On Wednesday, Channel 4's 'Super Nanny' Jo Frost began a new series - Extreme Parental Guidance.

One family featured had a daughter with a severe neurological disorder - Rett syndrome.

Their son’s behaviour was affected by the impact this had on the family.

The daughter, though not the main focus of the film, was shown at the start of the programme. Rett syndrome was in the news again the following day in an Evening Standard story headed 'Why I had to put film of my sick daughter on Facebook’

A few weeks ago, Panorama used the undercover techniques it deployed to expose poor standards of care for the elderly in 2009, to uncover systematic abuse of adults in care homes who were learning disabled, autistic or suicidal.

It used covert filming to do this, and so those filmed, like the two girls above, did not give consent for private distress being put in the public domain.

To declare an interest here, one of my daughters has Rett syndrome.

Together with Panorama's recent film, I can't think of better case studies to work through the balancing act involved in trying to do the right thing with respect to privacy, human rights, disability and the media. (I include social media here.)

The first reaction of Care UK, exposed in Panorama's 2009 programme, was that the privacy of elderly people had been invaded.

Karina Ballard, the mother featured in the Evening Standard story, told the paper she wanted to reach other parents through her Facebook page in the hope they will recognise and help her understand her daughter's responses to pain.

'Family and friends support the move but others have attacked it,' the Standard added.

Extreme Parental Guidance hasn't been attacked, that I can detect, but anyone objecting to Ballard's decision could also direct the same arguments to parents being assisted by Jo Frost - although to be clear the disabled sibling in EPG wasn’t shown in pain or distress.

Parents, of course, make decisions for their children all the time. But the reaction to some viewers is different when watching an eight-year-old singing in a talent show, to watching a moment of distress.

The question is, are human rights helpful in resolving these issues?

The use of human rights principles is not obvious here.

Even when my daughter is no longer a minor, she will not be able to speak. More than that, her brain cannot control her body. Yet scan her brain, and it is 'normal'.

She understands, therefore, much more than she can communicate. Her comprehension, and many of her preferences, remain literally locked in.

So how do the rights of these girls and their parents stack up? And what about the disabled adults filmed by Panorama?

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is the right to a private and family life. If we think there's a privacy problem, then in human rights terms, this is where it is.

Has a vulnerable person, who has not given their consent to a broadcast, been unintentionally put in the position of a 'freak show' exhibit? Put simply, maximum publicity for their worst moment, resulting in a bad outcome for their dignity.

I don't dismiss that out of hand. Of course, I think voyeurism and schadenfreude are a sick response to a portrayal of disability and vulnerability, but I don't rule it out.

Attacks on the disabled are on the increase, and we're not broadcasting to a uniform nation of saints.

But with Panorama, and for the families featured in EPG and the Evening Standard, strict privacy has come second to the aim of achieving changes that will improve other rights.

All members of the EPG family will have had their right to a family life, which sits with privacy in Article 8, challenged by the impact of Rett syndrome.

Jo Frost's support and guidance for the sibling, whose behaviour was shown on national television, may help.

For Ballard, the information that came back from her Facebook plea, focused as it was on better understanding her daughter's pain, may also help. Here two families have exercised their freedom of expression (Article 10), to better balance Article 8 rights.

Covertly filmed adults in the recent Panorama programme had not given their consent. But their treatment shown in the film was much worse than neglect even - I think it looked like torture (prohibited, Article 3).

Matters will change in their lives as a result of that film - they may even get back the respect in their private lives that was so visibly lacking. You can see other circumstances where prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) could also be helped.

Perhaps the key here, the point that distinguishes an unconsenting invasion of privacy to satisfy voyeurism from a fine balance of rights, is the possibility of an outcome that boosts the subject's rights in the round.

I have first hand experience of this. My wife writes a regular blog.

Of course, some things remain private and unmentioned, but others are laid open pretty frankly, as there is an intention to educate and inform.

Many of the numerous people who are involved in our daughter’s care are among its regular readers.

They report that they better understand how their role fits in with, and impacts on, other aspects of her care and various therapies, and on our family life. It's helpful.

One day, and the science gives genuine cause for hope, there might be a cure for our daughter's condition.

Will she tell us then that she minded me mentioning her here, or featuring on a blog?

Will she refer to her Article 8 right to privacy?

Whether she'd accept the point or not (her right, of course!), I hope I'd explain clearly enough that if we had respected her privacy in all respects, there are things that would have been worse for her and worse for us - that rights were being balanced, and that her interests were always at the heart of that balancing act.

One thing is certain, as government cuts impact on the services that vulnerable people rely upon, these questions over rights are going to be faced by more and more families.