Despite well-founded fears and protests, the Government still intends to proceed with plans for a computerised NHS patients’ database. However, by a meaningless concession, there is an exemption for anyone who can show that inclusion on the database will cause ’substantial mental distress’. Bizarrely, the Government claims that the database will ‘protect patient confidentiality’.
You will not be surprised to hear that I oppose this database. I do so for much the same reasons that I opposed identity cards: an unwarranted intrusion into our lives by the state. Unlike the Government, I don’t think this will protect patient confidentiality. Rather the opposite. There are many other reasons that this scheme should be opposed. Morag the Mindbender wrote an excellent post a while ago, summarising the arguments against the database.
Even if anyone could be persuaded as to the supposed merits of this database, is there any amongst us who (still) has faith that the Government can execute and administer an IT project effectively?
Anyone?
Thought not.
December 16th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
It’s a good idea in *principle* (allowing information to be passed from department to department more efficiently), however, given past experiences, it’ll turn out to be a disaster in practice.
December 16th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
I’m with you Bel. I do not like the idea of my personal imformation passing throughout government. It has the air of more anti-libertarian Labour to me. There again, they will never get the damned thing to work properly anyway, so why should I be worried?
On another topic, I managed to get the whole Blogpower thing working eventually, thanks to James. I’m up and running now.
December 16th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Totallyu understand your point about privacy,Big brother and all that. But - wouldn’t it be great when you pop along to an A&E unit in Scotland(’cos you fell over while visiting your Auntie Myrtle)and Dr Jock McFlop has all your details there.
Discuss
December 16th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Hi Andrew, I’m glad to hear that. I had also emailed James because Morag was also having trouble with the way the image showed up on her blog.
I agree with Andrew on the anti-libertarian point. Jeremycj, I can see the appeal of your argument, but the flipside is: is the convenience of having your records available for Dr Jock McFlop a price worth paying for this intrusion into our privacy? Who knows what else the records may be used for, and into whose hands they may fall?
As Matt M says, it will turn out a disaster in practice. I am firmly convinced of this.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:17 am
See http://www.thebigoptout.com.
Complete letter for your GP.
Tell your friends.
Dr Paul Thornton
January 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I am a retired police officer. Believe me, all this bollocks about it being for the good of the patient, really is a load of bollocks. It will be linked to other computers, including the PNC, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and any other interested party. Medical records are mostly incorrect anyway. The N.H.S. has attributed several different names for me, just so that it can claim to be treating several different people.
When I found out, I insisted that all the records be consolidated into my own name. This has hitherto not been done. I would appreciate any advice upon how I can force the NHS to use my name and only my name in the files relating to myself. You see, it could be very dangerous for me if I am taken into hospital unconscious and unable to give all the names used.
Bevan must be turning in his grave.
Sincerely,
Harry Palmer.