STICK 'EM UP! Your Info Or Your Life

Buried within the first of the pile o' poop passed by Pelosi:  funding for a National Database of our medical records.  Anyone else remember that?  Some folks raised a bit of a stink about it then, but of course the MSM downplayed it.  The so-called Stimulus bill signed with a swagger by our current President creates and funds a run to centralize all that data.  Ostensibly, the database would make diagnoses faster, eliminate conflicting medication, and save money.  Or, it is so we'll be able to quickly match the right doctor for each patient! 

Or it is for our safety and security.  Or it is "for the children."

 

Or it is yet another means of controlling us and infusing Fedzilla with yet more power.  Soft, slow tyranny by another name.

I began refusing to give doctors, dentists and insurance companies my Social Security number years ago, when they first started asking for it.  They huffed and puffed but backed down when I quoted the law to them:  Social Security cards and numbers are expressly NOT for identification purposes, and it is illegal for anyone to require you to provide it except in cases of IRS-reportable financial action such as interest-bearing accounts.  So they always had to make up some number that had the same form as a Social Security number to put on my forms.  Fine, right?

Not so fine.  Porculus began the process by which the law protecting our Social Security number, and all the information keyed to it, will be undermined and replaced with law requiring its disclosure.  The rationale will always be the same.  You must start giving that number to prove you are not an illegal alien or terrorist or whatever new bogeyman comes next.  It is for your safety and security.  Never mind the loss of liberty, never mind the intrusiveness, never mind that people who have no business seeing my records WILL gain access to them.

So, the nightmare horror stories out of universal care systems like England's?  Oh yeah, you betcha, we'll be matching them in no time at all.

 

 

Patients' Medical Records Go Online Without Consent
By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:20PM GMT 09 Mar 2010

At present 1.29 million people have had their details placed on the system. A further 8.9 million records are due to be added by June

 

Those who do not wish to have their details on the £11 billion computer system are supposed to be able to opt out by informing health authorities.  But doctors have accused the Government of rushing the project through, meaning that patients have had their details uploaded to the database before they have had a chance to object.

The scheme, one of the largest of its kind in the world, will eventually hold the private records of more than 50 million patients.  But it has been dogged by accusations that the private information held on it will not be safe from hackers.

 

The British Medical Association claims that records have been placed on the system without patients’ knowledge or consent.  It follows allegations that the Government wanted to complete the project before the Conservatives had a chance to cancel it.

In a letter to ministers published today, the BMA urges the Government to suspend the scheme.  Hamish Meldrum, its chairman, writes:

"The breakneck speed with which this programme is being implemented is of huge concern.  Patients’ right to opt out is crucial, and it is extremely alarming that records are apparently being created without them being aware of it.

"If the process continues to be rushed, not only will the rights of patients be damaged, but the limited confidence of the public and the medical profession in NHS IT will be further eroded."

 

At present 1.29 million people have had their details placed on the system. A further 8.9 million records are due to be added by June. By the end of next year, the NHS hopes to have more than 50 million uploaded.

The "summary" records contain basic medical information including illnesses, vaccination history, and could include medication patients have been given. Ages and addresses are also included.

 

Patients are supposed to be notified by letter at least 12 weeks before their details go live on the system and given the chance to opt out.  The BMA says that letters have gone to the wrong addresses and that many patients have been unsure what they mean.

 

Doctors point out that there has been no national advertising programme to explain the scheme, as has been the case with other government initiatives.  David Wrigley, from the BMA's GP committee, said: "The concern is that people may not be aware, because they did not receive the letter, they did not read it or they thought it was junk mail and threw it away."

 

The BMA also criticises the fact that the information packs do not include the form which allows patients to opt out. It can only be obtained via the internet or by calling a helpline.

 

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said: "The Health Service should not put in place bureaucratic obstacles to patient choice because they are worried about what patients might choose to do."

 

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: "The Government needs to end its obsession with massive central databases.  "The NHS IT scheme has been a disastrous waste of money and the national programme should be abandoned."

 

A spokesman for the Department of Health said that ministers "absolutely support" the right of patients to opt out of the scheme, adding that various options were provided to make this straightforward.

 

 

Related Articles

• NHS staff left 'dead bodies on ward'

• NHS plans to use more generic drugs to save more than £20 million a year'

• Hospital car parking charges 'to be abolished for some within three years'

• Almost 50,000 patients a year 'die in hospital while suffering from malnutrition'

• Acupuncture 'does not aid fertility treatment'

• Doctors fight plans to hand medical records to researchers and private companies