On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:48:28 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam>
wrote:

>On 2008-06-28 19:55:48 +0100, magwitch <a@c.d> said:
>
>> Andy Hall wrote:
>>> 
>>> Anecdotal information isn't very useful.
>>> 
>>> Before undertaking a clinical procedure, it's the responsibility of the 
>>> individual to check out the facility and the personnel involved and to 
>>> cross check that in the profession to determine track record.     That 
>>> is more indicative of likely outcome.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Reading through your first callous reply was bad enough, but here it is again!
>
>It isn't callous at all, but the right way to make medical choices.
>
>If you want to make decisions about your healthcare based on what 
>happened to friends and acquaintances then go ahead, but it won't 
>result in the best outcome available.
>
My main concern with the NHS is confidentiality. Once upon a time your
medical history was totally confidential between yourself and your GP,
held on paper records at his surgery and only released to consultants
as necessary and with your agreement/knowledge.

Now your history is readily available to 'practice nurses', so-called
'healthcare professionals',  occasionally outside support groups,
receptionists and probably the office cleaner, without your knowledge.

Very soon all that's known about you will be available (regardless of
what HMG assure us) to anybody in the NHS anywhere in the country,
medics or otherwise, very likely to data processors abroad, and almost
inevitably, given HMG's recent records, to people who find
disks/laptops on trains, in car boots or in the back of couriers'
vans.

-- 
Frank Erskine

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:13:49 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam>
wrote:

>On 2008-06-28 23:18:59 +0100, Frank Erskine 
> said:
>>> 
>> My main concern with the NHS is confidentiality. Once upon a time your
>> medical history was totally confidential between yourself and your GP,
>> held on paper records at his surgery and only released to consultants
>> as necessary and with your agreement/knowledge.
>> 
>> Now your history is readily available to 'practice nurses', so-called
>> 'healthcare professionals',  occasionally outside support groups,
>> receptionists and probably the office cleaner, without your knowledge.
>> 
>> Very soon all that's known about you will be available (regardless of
>> what HMG assure us) to anybody in the NHS anywhere in the country,
>> medics or otherwise, very likely to data processors abroad, and almost
>> inevitably, given HMG's recent records, to people who find
>> disks/laptops on trains, in car boots or in the back of couriers'
>> vans.
>
>To a point I agree with you.   I would prefer it if there were better 
>controls and I have some concerns about where the information goes.     
>However, three things fom personal experience:
>
>- My first 20 years of written medical records were lost a few years 
>ago, never to be seen again.   As it happens, it's not too important 
>because there was nothing that eventful.
>
>- I can call the surgery from anywhere in the world and obtain the 
>figures from test results without having to mess about with visiting 
>the surgery and wasting GP time just to get some numbers.      I would 
>say that the level of front end security to that could be better - they 
>ask name, DOB and address only.   A PIN would be a good idea.  Even 
>better would be if I could retrieve the information myself.

That's not the point. My concern is that so many people have
unfettered access to your records, not your access to your own
records.

>Overall, I feel that the benefits of online information outweigh the 
>risks.     The laptop stories are all very interesting but the question 
>is who will get the data and what will they do with it.     A load of 
>credit card numbers is useful possibly because they can be run for 
>purchases.

Purchases don't come into it - my concern is that of the nanny state
delving into what is private information.

>Who would pull my data out of 60M others and target 
>me individually?

Who indeed?

>The information isn't that interesting to be honest and what would they do with it?
>
???

-- 
Frank Erskine

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:11:36 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam>
wrote:

>On 2008-06-29 00:49:19 +0100, Frank Erskine 
> said:
>> 
>> That's not the point. My concern is that so many people have
>> unfettered access to your records, not your access to your own
>> records.
>
>Well, yes, they do, but what use can they make of it?

That's irrelevant.

If it's available, there'll always be somebody trying to find a use
for it. This always happens.
>

>I know that security by obfuscation isn't a good principle, but I'm not 
>sure what the nanny state can do with knowing my blood group and lipid 
>profile.
>
That's fine if YOU want this information known...

Cheers -

-- 
Frank Erskine