BBC medical records story

[Ken Brown]

Because the patient might not be where the backup is. 


Pete Chown wrote:
> 
> Roland Perry wrote:
> 
> > They will expect whoever issued the card to keep a backup.
> 
> But if they do that, why have people carry the data around?  Why not
> just get the person to identify him or herself and then read it from the
> "backup"?

It would be a wonderful idea 


*if* the data on the card was a text summary of the medical records and
no attempt was made to include all the images. I imagine for 90% of the
population 90% of the use could be from a simple list of previous
diagnoses, drugs prescribed, vaccinations given, hospital-care episodes
& surgical procedures carried out,  carrier status for any serious
genetic problems, known serious  allergies, and so on, (Though I bet
that all those people who are convinced that they are allergic to
something in their food would be pissed off when they found their doctor
hadn't put it in the record)

and *if* it was in a simple text format so the user could read it
themselves with standard equipment

and *if* it wasn't compulsory (in theory or practice) before you are
treated

and *if* employers and insurance companies had no way whatsoever of
accessing it (ideally because, not being compulsory, you didn't even
have to tell them you had one - which might involve some legislation to
rein in the egregious small print that insurance companies use to the
effect that "if you know anything that we might want to know, even if
completely irrelevant to this contract, then we never have to pay you a
penny for anything at all")

and *if* it did not morph into a general government id card

I suspect that none of these ifs would be true :-(

The security issue is less important IMO. The paper records aren't
exactly encrypted at the moment. Ideally it should be a matter of
choice. I don't really care if people in general know my medical history