Why we Should Opt Out of the Government's New Patient Database
By Edward Hockings,
The Guardian
| 01. 31. 2014
We have until March to opt out of the
care.data initiative. The ‘
theoretical risk’ that we might be re-identified from our personal data once it is made available to third parties is a compelling reason to opt-out. However, this is not the only reason. Care.data is part of a major legislative programme that includes the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (
CRPD) and the
100,000 genome project – through which whole-sequenced genomes will be put to commercial use. These major infrastructural developments have been accompanied by radical changes to privacy law that have resulted in a cultural shift in the governance of information.
These sweeping changes in privacy law were introduced without consultation, and the risks they entail will be borne by those whose medical records may be accessed without their consent. How did we get to this point? Fourteen years ago, written evidence by SmithKline Beecham to the Select Committee on Health, House of Commons, advanced the view that the “
NHS represents a singular but under-utilised resource for population genetics, and healthcare informatics more generally.”...
Related Articles
It’s been a busy couple of months in biopolitics, with developments in the US, UK, China, Japan, and implicitly on Mars. Time for a brief roundup.
• • •
Bioethics needs an update
The National Research Act is now 50 years old. It was signed into law on July 12, 1974, as a direct response to publicity about the 1932 “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The Hastings Bioethics Forum celebrated its anniversary with an...
By Robert Resta, The DNA Exchange | 07.22.2024
Medical geneticists and genetic counselors have an often complicated and at times tense relationship with people with disabilities, their families, advocates, and scholars. Geneticists are strong advocates and supporters for all of their patients, regardless of their abilities and disabilities...
By Katherine Bourzac, Nature | 07.10.2024
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...