Doctors outcry over plan to sell patient records

#1
Doctors' outcry over plan to sell patient records

Government plans, contained in the Coroners and Justice Bill, would allow almost unlimited access to medical records of named individuals without their consent.

Under the proposals, patient information held by GPs, health centres, pharmacists and hospitals could be passed to insurance companies or research organisations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...outcry-over-plan-to-sell-patient-records.html
As each day passes the ZANU Labour party disgusts me more and more
 
#2
.Sven said:
Doctors' outcry over plan to sell patient records

Government plans, contained in the Coroners and Justice Bill, would allow almost unlimited access to medical records of named individuals without their consent.

Under the proposals, patient information held by GPs, health centres, pharmacists and hospitals could be passed to insurance companies or research organisations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...outcry-over-plan-to-sell-patient-records.html
As each day passes the ZANU Labour party disgusts me more and more
I doubt this would stand up in the EU courts...
 
#3
Im sure Insurance companies would be very interested in these records. Your next application for life insurance, or even a mortgage if this is introduced would be "more interesting"
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Under Gordon Mugabe's Socialist Dictatorship your person in all its aspects belongs to the State, get used to it. You HAVE NO FREEDOMS, they have all gone. It's only a matter of time before 'Social Housing' becomes the compulsory billeting of immigrants on householders with more than the minimum necessary number of bedrooms .. after one's street warden has removed culturally offensive pictures from one's walls, of course. Photos of people in the Queen's Uniform will go first.
 
#5
Don't all kid yourselves guys, this sort of thing is already happening but at a very low level. Dr Foster' plans are to centralise all this data and sell it on to willing clients, at a healthy profit of course .

Dr Foster
 
#6
#7
seaweed said:
Under Gordon Mugabe's Socialist Dictatorship your person in all its aspects belongs to the State, get used to it. You HAVE NO FREEDOMS, they have all gone. It's only a matter of time before 'Social Housing' becomes the compulsory billeting of immigrants on householders with more than the minimum necessary number of bedrooms .. after one's street warden has removed culturally offensive pictures from one's walls, of course. Photos of people in the Queen's Uniform will go first.
Shades of the Abschnittsbevollmächtiger (ABV) in East Berlin, your local "friendly" face of the State, to whom you can turn when trouble looms, eg persons with anti-socialist tendencies. All we need now is the Hausbuch, a mandatory record of all persons living in the house and all visitors who stay overnight.
 
#8
Choice in the NHS means that both you and your local consumers need to understand what they are looking for in healthcare. For the first time, patients and GPs are able to decide which hospital best suits them. This means that trusts need to understand and communicate effectively with their communities and be in a position to respond quickly to the consequent shifts in the market.
Can someone explain to me exactly what this means? I have an IQ at the high end of Infantry , and I can't make the words mean a damn thing.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
PartTimePongo said:
Choice in the NHS means that both you and your local consumers need to understand what they are looking for in healthcare. For the first time, patients and GPs are able to decide which hospital best suits them. This means that trusts need to understand and communicate effectively with their communities and be in a position to respond quickly to the consequent shifts in the market.
Can someone explain to me exactly what this means? I have an IQ at the high end of Infantry , and I can't make the words mean a damn thing.
Two positive sounding sentences allied to a fcuking awful proposition makes the fcuking awful proposition more palatable. A spoonful of sugar . . .
 
#10
Thank you Biped,

Personally I thought it was utter bollox dressed up for a night at the Opera.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
I don't want 'choice' in the NHS, I want my local hospital to be able to fix me up, whatever is wrong with me, without delay, without using a surgeon who is the favourite of the local undertaker, without infecting me with something I didn't have when I went in, and without me waking up on a mixed-sex ward. Oh, sorry Seaweed, you really must tune in to the 21st century NHS and besides you are a geriatric white male so the sooner you pop off, the betetr.
 
#12
seaweed said:
I don't want 'choice' in the NHS, I want my local hospital to be able to fix me up, whatever is wrong with me, without delay, without using a surgeon who is the favourite of the local undertaker, without infecting me with something I didn't have when I went in, and without me waking up on a mixed-sex ward. Oh, sorry Seaweed, you really must tune in to the 21st century NHS and besides you are a geriatric white male so the sooner you pop off, the betetr.
You will have choice whether you like it or not.
Neue Arbeit says you must therefore you have no choice in the matter.
 
#13
The idea of health professionals being able to share information is, basically, a very good one. For example, if you are from Manchester and holidaying in Blackpool and have an accident, the Blackpool A&E can access your GP records and check for allergies etc. Choice, unfortunately, has been eroded because under the new system GPs are unable to refer to a named consultant even if you have already seen that consultant. They can put "prefers Mr ......" but this is generally ignored to meet government imposed targets. Your medical information will already be shared by many organisations but, at the moment, this is anonymised and is used for research, for example, prevalence of diabetes in a particular area.
If you apply for insurance or compensation after an accident or anything involving insurance or solicitors, your GP is obliged to provide all your medical information regardless of whether it is pertinent or not. Again, as an example, a woman claiming for a whiplash injury will have the fact she had an abortion a few years earlier revealed. At the moment, this information can only be released provided you give your permission and you have the right to see any report before it is given to someone else. This new ruling is designed to pass your medical information to anyone who the government thinks can have it and, the big one, all your medical information will be held on a central computer. To avoid this, contact the admin staff at your local GP and tell them you wish to opt out of the "Spine". They should then enter a code into your records and no-one can access your records without your permission. This has the disadvantage that doctors at hospitals or A&Es cannot see your records and have to contact your GP to find out important information about you. I struggle to find a reason for why a government feels that they have the right, or even a reason, to let insurance and medical research companies access your private medical records. If this was information shared only by health professionals, with proper access codes etc, then I can see why this is a good idea. Just another control system by an ever increasing domineering nanny state and a way of bringing in extra money.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top