Anyone know what is the *real* purpose behind this questionaire the NHS has just sent out? It goes without saying it's just another part of the Privatization of the NHS by stealth. i.e which aspect of NHS care is to be denied to us without charge this time.
Ah well, if the sheeple will vote ConDem or Lab we continue to get the same pathettic governments.
What would you suggest as an alternative?
MBQ
Don't be silly. They have given up trying to put your entire medical record online so they are putting the essentials online. If you have a problem and need to use an NHS service other than your GP they can access this record to discover you are allergic to penicillin or have diabetes, etc. Without it they have to guess and sometimes they guess wrong. The main thing is that *you* need to make sure the GP has put enough information in the record to be sure you get the correct treatment elsewhere.
The c*ck-up with the NHS IT systems is down to the previous government, they organised, specified and borrowed the money for it.
One of the problems with healthcare is that the longer it prolongs life the more care is needed, so the costs would eventually make it unsustainable. However it is going to be a brave person indeed to introduce a debate on what we can do to be both fair humane and still afford it. Brian
That surprises me, as the NHS already practices rationing, and always has. And of course many die because of it.
NT
So be it.
MBQ
Italy apparently just wrote some software for different computer systems to talk to each other. Vaguely like the way the internet works apparently.
I don't know, give us a clue to which you refer and we might be able to tell you...
You seem to be barking up the wrong tree here.
Your insight is profound...
Spot on.
Personally I'm looking forward to the NHS telling me on what day I'm due to die [preferably of an NHS-issued overdose of morphine]. Then, *I* will be able to schedule all my over-indulgences properly, and *they* will not have to feel that they have to eke out my life -- often painfully, I hear -- in an attempt to help me live forever.
As someone else has said (in as many words): the NHS has been painted into a corner by generations of pusillanimous politicians. The people who set it up never intended that "everyone ought to live forever" -- they just thought it was wrong that folks should pay the medical professions to treat their illnesses. (Yes I know that they're holes there in that statement, but my tea's ready and ignoring the call is a sure way of inviting something worse than death.)
John
One of the things which worries me about the whole thing - and one reason why I opted out when it was first mooted - is that there doesn't seem to be any unique way of identifying each individual. There's every possibility that medics away from home could be accessing the records for a totally different Joe Bloggs, rather than yours!
Eat up all your greens.
If that is true they still could even if you have opted out (not that there is an option to opt out so suggest you read the letter again).
I haven't received a letter recently. I delivered an opt-out form to my doctor a long time (maybe two years?) ago when this first arose. Is that not still valid?
I just checked and you can still opt out. Why anyone would is a mystery. Its like telling your GP to destroy all the notes on your treatment and starting without any prior knowledge when you next visit. I would be more concerned on making sure there was enough information in there myself.
Nonsense! It doesn't restrict what information your GP keeps about you - but just what is published to the wider world.
If you have allergies or conditions that anyone subsequently treating you needs to know about, it's better to have them tattoo'd on your forehead (or otherwise carried on your person in some easily identifiable form) rather than relying on the information being available in a central database which doesn't have any proper way of identifying you.
The wider world being other NHS institutions. They have to start from scratch. Just think about being brought into A&E, out cold. They would log on and see what you conditions were and treat you as needed. If you choose to opt out they will have no idea if its an existing condition, what your allergies are, etc. Anyway what do you think you are saving by not letting other parts of the NHS seeing your summary? Are you not going to tell them if they ask?
It has names, addresses and DOBs. If they don't know them then they are no worse off, if they do then you and they are better off.
E.g. your partner can identify you but may well not know you medical history.
Out of six blood-pressure medications, four caused me various unfortunate side effects, some of which are still present five years after stopping taking them.
Not one doctor has placed a note on my record mentioning any this.
I too wonder what the real purpose of the Summary Care Record is.
If I collapse in the street, and am taken to A&E, the staff there have a well-worn algorithm for dealing with whatever issue(s) caused the problem. I'd rather they did that than fart about seeing which one of the fair number people in the UK have the same names as me, as they waste time trying to bring up the right SCR.
Terry Fields
Far safer than risking being treated based on *somebody else's* records
I have absolutely no faith in any government-inspired IT project, nor in the alleged safeguards for limiting access to those with a 'need to know'.
Of course.
As long as they're *yours* and not someone else's!
This is pretty much the same argument that folks trotted out wrt to the national identity register... summarised as "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear". A casually plausible sounding statement until you take a moment to analyse it and realise that it is founded on a number of fallacies and false assumptions.
1) You are trusting that the people you are giving information to are trustworthy to keep it safe. 2) You are trusting that the keepers of the information only have benign intent 3) That the stated purpose for keeping said information will remain unchanged.Now hopefully after some of the more widely publicised data losses by big public bodies in recent years people will begin to realise that 1 is never going to happen. Especially with large systems built to the lowest price with aspects of them outsourced to third world countries with very different attitudes to data security than our own.
With 2, you have to include not only the keepers of the information, but also all those with access to it. Access via approved channels, and also access via illegal back door channels. Again it should be clear that restricting access to the intended users is unlikely to happen completely.
Finally 3, should be a lesson learnt from history, that if you provide a capability, there will be feature creep in the future. How long before someone realises that there is a profit centre to be made selling information from the database (with promised safeguards of "anonymisation" - yeah right).
The medic alert bracelets seem to be an effective way of carrying warning information of this type.
Are you being treated for your paranoia?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.