BT 2006 trials of Phorm

[Ian Batten]

On 06 Jun 08, at 1635, Roland Perry wrote:

> In article <B1086478-4CD7-4DF2-8B1E-2037E0871875@batten.eu.org>, Ian  
> Batten <igb@batten.eu.org> writes
>> I would be totally  unconcerned, at a personal level, about  
>> arbitrary read-only access to  my medical records, and I bet you  
>> the same applies to a solid majority  of the population.
>
> You are probably not doing something mundane like trying to hide  
> evidence of contraception (or the absence of it) from parent or  
> partner.

Indeed, I'm not.  And nor --- and this is my point --- are most  
people.    Arguing that I should treat my medical records as  
confidential because they might contain things that are confidential  
falls at the ``ah, but they don't'' hurdle.

And although I've said that one reason I'm in favour of medical  
privacy is so that my children can, if they wish, obtain medical  
services without my knowledge, a lot of people don't agree and we've  
done Gillick competence recently.   And look for public support for  
the position, ``this is important so that spouses can be dishonest  
with each other'' may not be a vote winner.

Of course, one reason why you can obtain contraception through family  
planning centres is precisely to remove the temptation of a doctor to  
tell the childless man that his wife's had a coil fitted by allowing  
her to do so independent of their (usually shared) GP.

ian