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

[Stephen Wilson]

I'm dumfounded how you can caricature those with e-health privacy 
concerns as so black and white, and then seek to justify an entire EHR 
superstructure on the basis on an anecdote.   Enough rhetoric.  Let's 
have a transparent privacy and risk analysis!

Stephen Wilson
Lockstep

http://lockstep.com.au
Lockstep Consulting provides independent specialist advice and analysis
on digital identity and privacy.Lockstep Technologies develops unique
new smart ID solutions that enhance privacy and prevent identity theft.




On 20/12/2011 11:48 AM, David Boxall wrote:
> On 19/12/2011 9:50 PM, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> David writes,
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> ... going forward, such medical records will be better than gold to
>> low-life elements.
>
> The risks are huge, granted. Are we to believe that:
> 1. privacy is all and;
> 2. a single, broadly-accessible health record holds no potential benefit
> for any Australian consumer of health services?
>
> Consider a non-hypothetical middle-aged Aboriginal male, admitted
> semi-conscious to Alice Springs hospital. He's mumbling something over
> and over, in a language other than English. When someone finally manages
> to interpret, the message is roughly "Whitefella medicine will kill me".
>
> It is not unknown for such messages to be interpreted as superstitious
> nonsense and disregarded. It is not unknown for the patient to die.
>
> The patient has minimal kidney function, diabetes and a suppurating
> wound on one foot. The treating physician elects minimal treatment until
> she can figure out what's going on.
>
> Through local community resources, the patient is identified, his kin
> are contacted and basic medical history established. It turns out he's
> allergic to a family of antibiotics commonly used to treat the type of
> infection he has.
>
> Finding the information necessary to avoid killing the patient has taken
> several days. In that time, his infection has caused further kidney damage.
>
> Several years earlier, the patient was admitted unconscious to another
> hospital. He was not able to warn treating staff of his allergy, which
> was known since childhood. Treatment didn't kill him, but it did damage
> his kidneys.
>
> If his health records had been available when needed, could outcomes for
> this man have been different? What is the potential for his quality of
> life? What is the potential for his future health costs?
>
> Beyond our comfortable middle-class existence, similar cases are not
> uncommon. Thinking outside our obsessions, are the risks worth taking?
>