Dana Blankenhorn believes that the public’s fears over electronic medical records are overblown. To prove this, he cites three data points:
- He is not concerned about people knowing about his heart disease, he’s told his children all about it.
- The Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center says people are just under educated.
- Many elderly patients want their doctor to have access to records in the event of an emergency.
To which I respond:
- What if you had a socially embarrassing disease, say gonorrhea, would you want your children to know about that?
- Want if you had a disease that could effect your employment, say like a mental illness?
- Have the folks at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who did the focus group study, take into account the poor record that organizations, many well versed in IT security, at keeping control of personal information (please note how many of the breaches involve medical providers and insurance companies)?
- Have we all noted the potential conflict of interest that exists, considering how much money the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center may be able take in under the Obama administration and the stimulus spending measure Congress passed several months ago?
- For those elderly patients that have emergency access concerns, why don’t they pay to have their history tuned into electronic medical records, clip them to a USB data drive attached to a bracelet.
While I trust my doctor and the hospitals I use with my life, I see no reason to trust them with my electronic records. For the rest of us, opting out should be a possibility.
