Government Access to Patient Record(s)

PATRIOT Act Patient's access to records: register with the website Healthspace to review your records, or you can ask your GP for a printed copy, but it's currently unclear how any necessary amendments can be made or how you can opt out if there is such a choice. It is anticipated that around two months will be allowed to review records and/or opt out if desired. The record should remain in your GP's surgery. This implies the record will already be in the database so it can be reviewed. After the review period, the presumption will be your agreement if the opting out choice has not been made. The implication is of a thin end of a wedge. The first suggestion is that there is a choice to include the personal record or not in a national database. I anticipate that at some time in the future it will be added anyway, assuming it hasn't been already. Such an 'opting-in by inaction' system cannot be used for organ donation and requires positively 'opting-in'. That's a very significant difference. Whatever the claim in launching a public information programme, the majority will almost certainly not even review the record for accuracy let alone make the positive choice of denial of access.

Refuse permission and keep your records locally with your GP.

How can I know what is available to unknown agencies? I cannot, though my presumtion is that it will all be available with or without my agreement. Initially the patient records [Summary Care Records (SCRs)] to be uploaded from GP's surgeries, it is claimed, will contain data only on medication, allergies and adverse drug reactions. Eventually, more detailed and sensitive information will, no doubt, follow. It's unlikely that such uploading will be done twice: a whole nation's (verified for opt-in accuracy and permission) medical record? The cost: part of the £6bn NHS IT (alleged) upgrade. Again, money no object even though there is never enough money for adequate facilities and service. These two themes are just too incompatible to suggest truth. Justification: the Department of Health (DoH) claims that only clinicians with legitimate relationships would be able to see clinical notes and facilitate easy access to information if ever there is a 'medical' need. Plausible. Just. I don't accept this justification. There is an implied suggestion that 'clinicians can see clinical notes' so 'others can see other notes'. It is entirely feasible that the information could be locked to casual interrogation of the database and so create the illusion that the information is not there. You wouldn't know as it would have a higher level of security access. Confidentiality? Forget that. It's all part of the 'systems' paranoia and obsession about surveillance. Back door snooping by knocking at your front door. My personal medical record is between my GP and myself. Breaking confidentiality is contrary to law. The misuse of medical history is brought into the equation with this invidious move. Take for example my own personal experience of abuse of records. My Abbey Life insurance claim: once a claim is filed, the entire medical becomes available to the insurer/assurer. 'Cherry picking' suitable instances covering a life time that suits a refusal then takes place. And they do not need to give any detail of the "associated symptom" that is alleged to support the refusal. My personal outcome was successfully concluded - just about satisfactorily - breaking this original refusal though it took 15 months. The dangers inherent in such a system are many. Never will I "knowingly" make it easy for such a system to include my record. But that's only the illusion. It almost certainly will happen whether I opt out or not: such is this goverment's (to be continued by the 'next') predilection for surveillance. Knowing as much about me as possible. Health minister Lord Warner says that the system is secure. Such comment does not inspire me with confidence. In fact, the absolute reverse. If anyone ever says "...trust me..." to a comment (especially if ''... would I lie to you?" is added: of course you would!) then I know a lie is coming. Honest people never say "...trust me..." as there is no need to subconsciously imagine that any comment would not be believed.

Has the national police computer ever been accessed illegally?