The citizen has no legal right to stipulate what will and will not be recorded……..nor where those records will be held
– Department of Health (source: Guardian 1/11/06)
The scheme to place all of our medical records on one database has never had my support. The costs were always going to be huge – £12 billion and rising. For practical reasons, it always struck me as an impossible task to construct a system with so many variables that would have practical benefits. For starters, doctors can (and should be free to) describe the presenting complaint of a patient in so many different ways. How does a system allow for that professional flexibility? Furthermore, throughout the NHS there are different hospitals and GP practices working different IT systems. Why the need for a central database? Why not just have ensured that each NHS site could interact with one another? Is that not how the internet works? I am no ‘tecchie’, but is it not the case that HTML allows communication between different parts of the internet?
A central database by definition holds all the information in one place. What if it crashes? Who charges the on-going maintenance for such an essential resource? – good business if you can get it. And more importantly, who has the right of access to the information? It is this concern that the Guardian head-lined on today.
This government has sought to collect and control information centrally since it came to power in 1997. Laws drawn up under the threat of terrorism have been repeatedly challenged by the Conservatives and other non-politically aligned organisations such as Liberty. The health database is yet another example of ‘Big Brother’ government. Today, the Guardian reported that the Health Department issued the following statement: “Patients do not have the right to say the information (on the health database) cannot be held.” Apparently, any objection by a patient can be overridden “in the public interest”. Are you happy with this? I am not. Where are the safeguards? Who has the right to access the information? Can the secret services use the information? If so, who determines the relevance of that information? For example, would the presence of a previous abortion in someone’s history be relevant? It could be a possible bargaining chip under interrogation. As could someone’s HIV status. So many questions, not enough answers. The British people should be more concerned about this further invasion of their privacy. Liberty and privacy once lost will not easily be regained.
