David Davis: You what?

It should not be possible to make money out of holding health data.

Eh?

Not at all? In no manner at all?

So the service has to be provided for free? No one can even set up a computer system that will hold your records for, say, £15  a year?

11 thoughts on “David Davis: You what?”

  1. That’s not what he meant. What he meant was that in order to offer the service for free to the end user, revenue has to come from other things like advertising, and that using someone’s personal medical data for those other purposes is wrong.

  2. “using someone’s personal medical data for those other purposes is wrong”

    Only if it is against their will.
    Personallly, I would feel far safer with Google holding my data rather than the government.

  3. “Personallly, I would feel far safer with Google holding my data rather than the government.”

    From a competence perspective yes.

    From the perspective that someone has data that charts almost my every waking moment from my political interests through to the state of my health and which exists in a jurisdiction over which I have even less control than the EU, then no, no, no.

    Davis is right on this one.

  4. “Only if it is against their will.”

    Indeed. But how many understand the complex security and privacy issues behind gmail, let alone something like your medical records?

    The “informed consent” thing requires “informed” to mean a tad more than a “yeah yeah, whatever” licence boxes on signup.

  5. Shouldn’t we take a step back and consider not so much the how and where such massive health databases are stored as to whether they should even be stored at all?

  6. “whether they should even be stored at all?”

    Lots of people have already considered that. There is a school of thought that you should keep your own records on your own smartcard. Tiny drawback: what happens if you lose it?

  7. I have a medical condition. I see three consultants in two hospitals and diagnostic testing in two more. There is no central record, each hospital keeps it’s own. Doctors write letters to each other with the briefest detail. My consultant doesn’t see MRI scans himself, just a 1/2 page report.

    I want a centralised database with my medical records in it- it may help diagnosis and treatment, maybe save my life. Do I. Care if a Dr sees an ad pop up for drug that could help me? No, the drugs adwords may be smarter than my Doc. Do I want my data agglomerated with data from others with my condition? You bet, it could lead to a cure.
    I’d rather trust google than the govt or some of it’s dodgy IT contractors.

  8. There is actually a compromise position- that is, data held in encrypted form that can only be read with the provision of a decryption key held by the individual.

  9. Ian B – wouldn’t work. There would at the very least need to be some sort of key escrow in case the patient lost the key or was otherwise incapacitated, and that vitiates the whole secrecy thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *