[LINK] Electronic medical records: why we should seek a second opinion

[David Boxall]

On 19/12/2011 3:45 PM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 03:30 PM 19/12/2011, David Boxall wrote:
>> Those of us
>> who are more comfortable will quibble about privacy and such, but do the
>> risks outweigh the benefits?
>
> The on-going problem is that the trials are going ahead without proper
> governance structures and enabling and controlling legislation in place.
> Does that make you feel any better?
>
> And I've had it reported today that the trial sites are NOT explaining
> any of the risks associated -- at all -- when spruiking participation.
>
> No matter how many submissions that have been presented, the powers that
> be still don't 'get it'.
>
> APF has published all/most of our submissions on the website, complete
> with guidance on the key areas. Silver platter even.
>
> http://privacy.org.au/
> http://privacy.org.au/Papers/indexPolicies.html#eH
>...

Nobody denies the risks. Clearly, the powers that be give those risks 
less weight than the Privacy Foundation would like. I've no doubt that, 
even with the best intentions, the implementation will be flawed; 
probably deeply so.

That said, the Privacy Foundation probably gives the benefits less 
weight than the powers that be would like.

For mine; though aware of the risks and not among the disadvantaged, I 
see enough benefits that I'll be willing to participate.

-- 
David Boxall                    |  Dogs look up to us
                                |  And cats look down on us
http://david.boxall.id.au       |  But pigs treat us as equals
                                                    --Winston Churchill