[LINK] spy technology

Ivan Trundle ivan at itrundle.com
Mon May 21 10:25:04 AEST 2007


On 21/05/2007, at 8:03 AM, Howard Lowndes wrote:

>
>
> Geoffrey Ramadan wrote:
>> Lea de Groot wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:14:42 +1000, Geoffrey Ramadan wrote:
>>>
>>>> This just highlights the common misconception about RFID... that  
>>>> you can just "wave your magic RFID wand" and read everything,  
>>>> everywhere in a room.... it is not going to happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, but what about a tracker in a wrist band (lets not get into  
>>> subcutaneous installs...)
>>> Put an RFID eqipped item down, tracker notes you are moving away  
>>> from item.
>>> Later on a vocal query of 'system, where is X?' would give a  
>>> return of where it was last put.
>>> Not that hard with a few developments, simpler versions (a  
>>> keypad) are quite doable now.
>>>
>>> Lea
>>>
>> I should have mentioned that with ACTIVE tags and WiFi networks  
>> set up for RTLS (Real Time Location Systems) you can infact track  
>> assets in real time readily now. This is finding great success in  
>> Hospitals in tracking equipment, beds and some patients. Resulting  
>> is saving in costs (because they know where the unused blood  
>> pressure monitor is) and better patient service.
>
> Tracking patients is archaic at the moment.  I had to have a day op  
> a few months back that necessitated a general anaesthetic.  I had  
> to leave my spectacles back in the ward, and had a wrist band on,  
> but I still had to be able to confirm my signature on the consent  
> as I went into pre-op.  Mind you, even worse, was the anaesthetist  
> requiring me to sign his consent in pre-op with no spectacles and  
> with an anaesthetic line already in my arm.

I might ask how an RFID chip would grant consent, but this aside...

>
> Why wasn't the anaesthetist organised to get his consent at the  
> same time as all the others in the holding ward, and why was my  
> wrist band not sufficient identity?

It's all part of the overall medical case management process:  
devolved to individual responsibility and care: the person who seeks  
your consent is ensuring that you are consenting to the process that  
he or she is administering - nothing more, nothing less.

The purpose of the multiple confirmation is to ensure that you're  
getting what you asked for, at multiple points (to check that no  
screw-ups have taken place between ward and theatre, and the various  
people and processes along the way). You should have felt reassured  
that there was this level of involvement with your case.

And if you think that a wrist band is enough, you're wrong: for the  
serious stuff, they tag your leg, too. Even with both tags, you will  
still be routinely asked to declare who you are, your birth date, and  
what you are 'in' for. And be asked to sign your consent, if you've  
got an arm to sign with.

You're lucky that you were only interrogated twice along your  
journey. For more complex operations, and if you're still lucid,  
you'll get constant checks - partly to reassure those operating, and  
partly to assess your condition as you go.

Medical tip: Don't mistakenly attempt to inject some frivolity at any  
of the routine and banal checks by suggesting that they are  
amputating the wrong leg, either: it is almost akin to declaring that  
you've got a bomb in an airport terminal (unless they are indeed  
about to remove the wrong leg...).

iT



More information about the Link mailing list