So much for human rights
"cannot be removed"? No, they do not have the right to determine this, I have.
Summary Care Records project lives
The Summary Care Records project will continue in care trusts where patients have been properly informed about the process. Michael Fallon, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, asked health minister Simon Burns if the controversial project to upload summary records to the central spine would continue. The LibDems made some vague …
-
-
Monday 7th June 2010 08:59 GMT Stephen Jenner
Human Rights? A political con...
As I have commented before, people just do not understand the con-trick that is "human rights".
We are all born free.... Nobody has granted us any rights, but our parent/s teach us according to their own sense, that which is right and that which is wrong. When we are adults, the law determines what is wrong... We essentially know when our deeds are wrong anyway, life has been like this for eons.
Then, one day along come some very clever politicians, who manage to sell us all the concept of a document which lists all of the things that should be our right.... Did you see what they did there? Anyway... Now we have a convention on human rights, and politicians and their mates the bureaucrats/quangocrats can do what they please to us... as long as it doesn't appear on this list of "rights", (And even then, the ECHR and it's little brother the Treaty of Lisbon, have opt out clauses)!! For instance, everyone has a "right to life"... unless a government decides for some reason to remove that "right".
{Art 2. Right to Life
Definition
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
Legal Explanations
1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:
1. 'Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law …'
2. The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed’.
Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.
3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 53(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:
a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
in defence of any person from lawful violence;
in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’
b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’. }
The politicians have managed a 100% reversal of our traditional rights, whereas we used to have a list of the things that are not acceptable (and consequently everything else was), we now have a list of the things that are acceptable (and what is left unsaid are all the things that we cannot do)... The cynic might consider these to be the things that government/bureaucracy has not yet managed to derive a revenue stream from.
As Johnny Rotten once said.... Ha ha... You've all been conned.
-
-
-
Friday 4th June 2010 14:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Glad I live in Scotland
I might be more likely to die from a pie overdose, but at least my proclivities won't end up in the hands of my insurers, the payout from which upon my untimely death will keep my pie-addicted children in pies for the rest of their lives. Which won't be long.
Hmm. Suddenly I'm peckish.
-
-
Friday 4th June 2010 23:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Slightly different
As far as I can see the main objections are that we don't trust the gubberment and it is an opt-out system.
The difference with the SCR system compared to the other recently-canned efforts is there is a perceived benefit which doesn't actually change from month-to-month: the better accessibility of records for the emergency situation.
I think if we could trust the people running it (we probably can't) and it was an opt-in system, I think it would be probably a good idea.
-
Monday 7th June 2010 09:02 GMT Mary Hawking
What is the strategic plan - if any?
The SCR is part of a wide system transformation - and appears to have ambitions to become a complete, but unmanaged, detailed care record: a very different thing from the original plan for a summary for emergency care!
1. For the SCR to be of any use it requires a high uptake among the patients ( we can opt-out), the practices (they can refuse to upload if they feel the patients have not been adequately informed or that their data is not of a sufficiently high quality: no standards exist for this now), the GP system suppliers (some of them haven't developed the facility yet) and the local emergency care services, especially in A&E and hospitals (Adastra, the major supplier of Out of Hours software, has already developed the ability to integrate the SCR).
i.e. as a *patient* it is likely to be a very long time before you could be confident that if you live in Birmingham and have an emergency in Brighton, your SCR will be available to A&E when you arrive, unconcious! ;-<
2. The first upload will be medication, allergies and adverse reactions - and in Scotland, this will remain the total upload - so Gordon Brown and Alex Salmon only had this information accessed illegally. In England, there appears to be no end to the information which *could* be uploaded - including eventually hospital letters. In the initial "enrichment" phase (i.e. additions to the initial upload), there is no clarity on what would be uploaded, who would decide (patient? GP? PCT? SHA? DH?) or who would control the flag on the spine allowing (or preventing) upload from non-GP sources.
3, There is no standard for data - or record - quality in General Practice records - and the situation is complicated when more than one organisation contributes to the record: errors may be reasonably identifiable in the original record: exported summaries cannot be checked in the same way, so ommissions and errors could increase risks rather than decreasing them.
4. the SCR is designed to be readily available to individuals with legitimate role based access throughout the NHS - and in future, possibly Social Care.
How confident are *you* that someone, somewhere, some time will not abuse their position to look?
We know it happened to Gordon Brown and Alex Salmon: would we have heard had they not been so high profile?
So what is the high level strategy behind continuing this very expensive project - and which other NHS budget will be slashed to pay for it?
-
-
Thursday 10th June 2010 09:19 GMT Mary Hawking
ref Opt-out, shmopt-out → #
Even with SystmOne you - the patient - can refuse to share your GP - or Community - or Mental Health - record with any other organisation.. *and* refuse to upload to the SCR. Theoretically this should protect you.
There is, or course, the interesting question of "Data Controllers in Common".
In SystmOne, is the GP (as Data Controller for the GP part of the record) legally allowed to upload data belonging to other organisations e.g. Menatl Health, Substance Abuse and the GUM Clinic? After all, these bits of the record have their own Data Controllers.
And if the GP can act as Data Controller for the *whole* record, can the Podiatrist?
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
