Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 11:33 GMT
Before this data gets sold on. F%^ck(£g Gordon Stalin Labour Government !
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 11:33 GMT
What's not clear in the article is if the patient is expected to pay for services from these Bupa nurses... it sound a bit like the Bupa nurse gets to target a condition, eg asthma, and then contact all patient with that condition and effectively try to sell them a private healthcare session?
Or have I got it wrong?
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 11:33 GMT
"But the Trust said it is following best practice privacy policy, and will stick with asking patients to opt out rather than opt in to the service."
Since when was it best practice privacy policy to share you data without permission?
Thats the opposite to privacy, surely?
And "didn't hear = didn't understand = didn't object = lost your objection" really just confirms that.
The pirate - because they can share our data but we can't share theirs
Sam
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 11:33 GMT
Have I missed something: didn't we bring in the Data Protection Act to prevent personal data from being passed about nilly willy, yet more and more companies and government departments seem to be by passing data on with the good old opt-out approach.
Then they have the audacity to tell us they did it for our benefit and not for the real reason which is funds from the third party !
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 11:33 GMT
well 'they' may decide to 'push ahead' anyway, regardless of peoples right to privacy, and doctor-patient confidentiality. well, if my medical records get 'shared' and i discover this, then someone is going to get taken to court.
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 11:33 GMT
"..But the Trust said it is following best practice privacy policy, and will stick with asking patients to opt out rather than opt in to the service."
Since when is this 'best practice' ? As defined where, by who? I thought that the Phorm experience had shown that active opt-out is not considered best privacy practice by most people.
Do they really 'ask patients to opt out'? I doubt it. They probably dump patients records into the scheme and hope that no one complains when they start getting marketing calls halfway through their evening meal.
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 12:34 GMT
And how, exactly, will patients be *informed* of this option anyway?
Probably in the same way that banks and so on try to coerce you into not opting out of their mailing lists by saying "Well, you could opt out, but then we might not be able to send you important information or help you if you need it ..."
Let's hear it for more FUD!
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 12:37 GMT
So... a private company gets government approved access to 'some' confidential details of potentially millions of people, and then is allowed to spam them with calls.
Mmmm - what can possibly go wrong with this idea.
Dumbasses
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 15:12 GMT
I can understand Phorm, I can understand private companies doing anything to make another buck and waiting for the backlash to tone things down. It's a stupid policy, but I can understand it. For the life of me though, I cannot understand that a public service, government-owned and government funded, without any commercial obligation, stoops to that kind of petty thievery. Where does this tendency come from ? What is it with civil servants these days ? Who in their right mind can possibly think that opt-out is the morally proper way to do things ? I can't get it. I just can't.
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 15:12 GMT
Back up after data entry for maximum sales - the opt-out won't apply to the archive, will it?
Patient records are not the patient's data, in any case: the doctor who wrote them 'owns' them.
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 15:12 GMT
Precisely. Got it in one. This is already happening in UK hospitals.
"You can opt out. But if you do we won't have access to your medical history so we won't be able to treat you."
Opt in or F-off.
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 15:12 GMT
"And how, exactly, will patients be *informed* of this option anyway?"
Simple - it will be on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
"Opt out" is NEVER best practice when it comes to sharing private data. Last time I looked, BUPA was a commercial, for-profit company, not a branch of the NHS.
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 15:27 GMT
Well, we HAD it. Then we gave it away. Oh, you don't want to participate. Well, here's the number for them. Just ring them up and let them know and I'm sure they will take you off their
database and purge all the records they have and...
Later...
What, you called them up and they said f-off! They couldn't remove the records because there is NO WAY to remove them? What do you mean they sold the database to someone else? They weren't supposed to do that. That's our remit.
another privacy fail.
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 23:29 GMT
When a group nurses stand around a light box giggling at an x-ray which has inadvertantly shown your penis any sense of privacy soon evaporates. It's only wishful thinking that they'd be bothered with your phone number.
Posted Wednesday 18th March 2009 23:50 GMT
By the time you're aware you need to opt out, presumably when you get some business touting cold-call/junk mail from BUPA, your privacy has already been breached, without your permission.
I can't see how they can legally say that they have decided to breach your doctor-patient confidentiality without your permission, but they'll resume it if you really want.
Oh wait a mo' ... they know best and will deal with all the difficult-to-think-about things on our behalf. I was forgetting.
Back to the article
