PKC

[Ken Brown]

Not the *release* of private information but its disclosure to public
health labs or possibly even the police. I'm sure it will happen soon if
not already. AIDS/HIV is a bad example because not particularly
infectious  (doctors will forgive me if I've used that word in the wrong
sense). But when the Next Scare (whatever it is) starts up, who knows
what will happen.

It is pretty trivial to construct unlikely-sounding scenarios which
sound more like Hollywood films than real life. But sooner or later one
of them will happen - or the tabloids will persuade enough  people that
one has happened. The kind of people who were involved in the paedophile
scare would have a field-day with tales of unknown super-bugs. 

What would happen if two people presented themselves at a hospital with
a community-accquired vancomycin-resistant MRSA?. One had it bad & died,
the other recovered quickly & discharged themselves  without completing
any course of medication. Would the hospital really refuse to give the
details of the survivor to a government official who asked for it? Even
if they had made it clear that they wanted to remain anonymous? (Say
they were an injecting heroin user who didn't want the police to know
about them).  


Owen Blacker wrote:

> 
> Moving somewhat off-topic, I'm not sure that the level of detail you
> suggest would *ever* be considered ethical, however.  Take the
> example of the HIV pandemic and move back to the early/mid '80s --
> would you really consider it appropriate to compel the release of
> details of who's slept with whom?  AFAIAA, all the HIV workers I know
> would probably disagree with you and I can't think of another way in
> which your comments could be interpreted...
> 
> Anonymised data should, of course, be made available.  Indeed, I can
> get these data already -- I subscribe to the CDC newsletters (/MMWR/
> weekly; /MMWR HIV/, /EID/ and /HIV Serosurveillance/ less frequently)
> which are conveniently delivered to me by email which are emailed to
> me.
> 
> Am I missing your point?   :o)
 
> > The big exception is obviously epidemiology/disease control where,
> > for interests of public health & self-defence society (or at any
> > rate the government) might need to demand personal data, which
> > could be just notification but might be as detailed as who ate what
> > or who slept with whom. These issues are going to get more
> > important as infectious disease once again becomes more significant
> > (in rich countries - the poor didn't have our 50 year antibiotic
> > holiday from serious infection of course).  There are perhaps
> > circumstances in which it is right for public bodies to demand full
> > details of an infection & so would in the limit have to be able to
> > force medical professionals  to divulge details of patients (cue
> > old Typhoid Mary films...)
> >
> > Ken