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

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Stephen Wilson
> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 3:54 PM
> To: Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Electronic medical records: why we should 
> seek a second opinion
> 
> On 19/12/2011 3:30 PM, David Boxall wrote:
> >  Those of us who are more comfortable will quibble about 
> privacy and  
> > such ...
> 
> Comfortable?  Quibble?  I'd prefer to say that whose who are 
> equipped to 
> think through the privacy issues will demand serious attention to 
> privacy and security.
> 
> I smell a rat when a writer like Dr Ahned opens the privacy 
> analysis by 
> saying yes there are risks but the benefits are greater.  Who says?  
> Where's the risk analysis (or is it just guesswork)?  What 
> exactly -are- 
> the risks?  Who understands them?
> <SNIP>

Well, what does a Government do when it has access to all of our
expenditure on drugs ? Money that it obviously won't get because we have
spent it, extending our lives.

This possible risk was exposed in the UK and the USA. Denial of Medical
Treatment, because of the socio-economic community backlash, -
Especially if you are paying for the additional cost privately.

In 1994, Marshal Perron, the Chief minister of the northern Territory
proposed a voluntary Euthanasia law for the Northern Territory.
That bill was not passed and forced Mr. Perron to tender his
resignation.

In the United States in 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act [Ref 1]. Democrats cheered. Republicans vowed to
repeal it. 
The Act manages to effect a redifinition of the relationship between the
citizen and the state in a number of fundamental ways... Not the least
of which is an intriguing socio-economic experiment with 300 million
people as guinea pigs.

Provision 148-H of the Act mandates the creation of a 15-member
Commission. 
The purpose of this Commission is to help regulate how many doctors are
required... At which hospitals and climics, how much they should be
paid, [per procedure and per consultation], where they should work, and
what kinds of treatment they should or should not give you. 
Specifically, to refuse treatment when it exceeds $6,000 per month.
(Even if you are paying it for, because it creates a two tier Health
System.)

A sentiment echoed by the Health Secretary in the UK, Alan Johnson [Ref
2] in 2008 when Mrs O'Boyle, a former "National Health Service
Occupational therapist, who is believed to have been the first person to
die after being denied free care because of 'co-payment', where a
patient tops up treatment by paying privately for extra drugs."

Quote/
'We were quite happy to pay for the drug and to give the Health Service
what it costs to buy it and to deliver the treatment but they said they
could not do that.
...
"Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has
one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe."
/Quote

My understanding is that the biggest risk may be the Government finding
out that you are spending your own money on drugs and treatment to
extend your life and they turn off the taps so that the persons that can
not afford the same treatment do not feel hard done by.

Western Governments' instituting Marxist equality to prevent the
peasants from breaching the gates.... 

Dr Tanveer Ahmed's article summarises with:

>  Equivalent attempts have fallen over in Britain due to a combination

> of financial turmoil, a change of government and poor clinician  
> involvement. Our government has learnt from these mistakes but the  
> risk remains that the issue may not be given due weight by the  
> community. Its appearance seems to be limited to the IT sections of  
> newspapers. But it could be a transformative event, for it will limit

> the potential of future health expenses to strain our economy, and it

> will make us healthier.

Yes of course it will, statistically. (There is no other possible reason
for a centrally accessible database of every Australian with all of
their medial statistical history. i.e.: it will be of benefit for
budgeting, research papers for baseline data, big pharma sales potential
analysis, and planning. Conversely, the same is available to Governments
today via a historically significant baseline with linear growth calcs.
Rather simple really.)

Conclusion:
If Health assistance is refused to even those that can afford it then
there will be less sick people, because they will have died and that can
be prettied up with all the hollow Marxist rationale that anyone cares
to sprout, but in the end, let's call it what it is, Government
sanctioned/enforced Euthanasia.

So for me the decision is easy. No Digital e-health Records that can be
accessed by any Federal organisation, including the ABS. Under any
circumstances.  My encrypted records on an SSD disk that I carry from
practitioner to specialist and back is fine via my personal
tablet/phone. The risk of data alteration is removed with the digital
signatures of practitioners.

Humanity has survived for 55,000 years without Federally accessed data
on moi, I'm sure it can survive another forty or so, after which my
views will doubtless be irrelevant. 

References:
[1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
[2]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1016262/Grandmother-dies-NHS-c
ancer-treatment-withdrawn-paid-privately-life-extending-drug.html#ixzz1g
yPJG1BV

TomK