Comment by Neil Taylor

December 18, 2006 @ 14:08

“Will civil servants have access to your sensitive medical data, and who will they be able to share them with?”

And why?

The hidden agenda to all this citizen databasing is thus revealed by this intention. The original stated purposes of this database of improving patient care no longer applies if we can remain off it, but the really important thing for government is that it holds this and other information on us, but for unstated purposes.

Comment by Dr Peter Davies

December 21, 2006 @ 09:12

I cannot see how the “Patients Tsar” Harry Cayton can be so actively supporting a system that destroys a patient’s right to data privacy.

To me this seems a very poor interpretation of the role of “patient tsar.” Or perhaps he is simply another on message Blair Commissar apparatchik.

Comment by Dave

December 24, 2006 @ 16:22

I do not care what his jpb title is. Having exchanged emails with Mr Cayton I have no respect for the guy and very much seems hell bnt on doing what the goverment wants hime to do. ‘Political Puppet’ would be a better job describtion.

Comment by Steven

December 28, 2006 @ 14:59

Comment by Neil Taylor

December 18, 2006 @ 2:08 pm

“Will civil servants have access to your sensitive medical data, and who will they be able to share them with?”

Can someone please tell me where this notion that civil servants will be able to access my medical records is actually coming from? Everything I have read about security of these systems indicates that my electronic record can only be accessed by a healthcare professional that has a ‘legitimate relationship’ with me.

It’s like scare stories about problems with internet banking – I have banked online for years with no problems!! A few people may have problems, but the vast majority have no trouble at all.

I would like to see this site have actual examples of this sort of thing rather than vague statements (and apologies if I have missed them!!)

Comment by Dave

January 3, 2007 @ 15:45

“Everything I have read about security of these systems indicates that my electronic record can only be accessed by a healthcare professional that has a ‘legitimate relationship’ with me.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Patient identifiable dat is to be shared with people like SUS without patient consent and where the patient has said no. I think the bit about cival servants does need to be cleard up. I got this deffinition from Wikipedia “A civil servant or public servant is a civilian career public sector employee working for a government department or agency. Further workers in non-departmental public bodies may also be classed as civil servants for the purpose of producing statistics. Examples in this category include some employees of so-called QUANGOs. Collectively they form a nation’s Civil Service or Public Service”. I take that to mean that SUS staff and managers would be classed as a cival servant. A receptionist at your GP practice is calssed as a healthcare professional even though she does not provide treatent and withholding data from him/her would not endanger your health or the health of others. How musch access she/he will get to the spine will be dcided by the practice and I have been in practices where she would have full access.

For years the health profession has also been sharing patient identifiable data to researchers without patient consent, this was only made legal (I use that word very lossley) in 2001 and continues to happen even though the majority of patients could be asked. It is highly unlikely that researchers will not want access to data SUS have, infact it is seen as a gold mine of information. In line with the current unethical practices, this is likely to be done without patient consent. That means not only would SUS be stealing the data from the patient but also allowing others to know about it.

The difference with online banking is that it is voluntary, accessing health care is rarley something the patient has any choice over. You can also use/not use the online banking as you feel like it, so if you do not want your online account or even your bank to know you buy porn, you use cash. With the spine ypue will be forced to let others know anything the doctor/nurse puts on it or anying SUS decide to steal. There is also the sensitivity to the information. You might be a bit anoyed to find out someone knows what you bout online because ether you had a virus in your computer or were fooled by spam into giving your login info, but what if it was the fact that you had been abused/raped, had sexual problems or any other medical info? The effect on patients is far more severe.

Then you have the level of access, a level that is increasing all the time. Do you actually know who has access to your records as it is? There are people within the health profession that think they should be allowed to know every condition you have ever had (In Grampian for example nurses at asthma clinics are allowed to know about things like rap, abuse, sexual problems, emotional problems, bed wetting problems, sexual problems and everything else, simply because they demand access to it). You might not care who has access to your records, but that does not mean all your family/friends should be forced to share data because you dont mind. The spine will do nothing to save lifes (that is the opinion of the medical profession), could cost lives and take away what little rights we have, just so civil servants can get their hands on our information to fit in with Mr Blair’s ideal big brother society.