TC
27th June 2007, 15:09
Doctors back plan to store medical info under your skin
Tue Jun 26, 9:38 AM ET
CHICAGO (AFP) - Doctors could soon be storing essential medical information under the skin of their patients, the American Medical Association says.
Devices the size of a grain of rice that are implanted with a needle could give emergency room doctors quick access to the records of chronically ill patients, the nation's largest doctors group said in a report.
The association adopted a policy Monday stating that the devices can improve the "safety and efficiency of patient care" by helping to identify patients and enabling secure access to clinical information.
These radio frequency identification tags (RFIDs) are already used by Wal-Mart and other businesses to speed up their shipping systems by sending out small signals that can be scanned more easily than bar codes.
Implanting them in people "can improve the continuity and coordination of care with resulting reductions in adverse drug events and other medical errors," said the report prepared by the association's ethics committee.
But the devices "also may pose some physical risks, compromise patient privacy, or present other social hazards."
The main concern is protecting the privacy of the information stored on the devices.
There are also health concerns.
While the devices are removable and designed to stay in place, their small size could allow them to move to other parts of a person's body.
They may also cause interference with electrical devices like defibrillators and it has not been determined what impact they would have on prescription drugs.
The report concluded that it is "likely that utilization of RFID devices for medical purposes will expand."
The US Food and Drug Administration has so far only approved "passive" tags for human implantation which cannot be altered once inserted and have a limited capacity and transmission range.
The devices are also only allowed to contain a unique identification code in order to protect patient privacy.
The FDA may eventually approve "active" devices which contain internal batteries and can be updated as a patient's condition changes.
The association warned of "potential social consequences" such as using the devices for surveillance which could be an infringement on individual liberties.
It recommended that the devices not be implanted without the informed consent of patients and that doctors monitor their use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070626/hl_af...iencetechnology (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070626/hl_afp/ushealthsciencetechnology)
I'll probably write more about this later...not so much the individual topic but as an example of concerning issues with the general relation of capitalist health care to clients. Specifically, i think that the tendency to blindly defer to 'expert' advice on the most intimate and personal matters is extremely concerning, especially when doctors and clients interests are divergent in at least three areas (1. doctors and patients have conflicting financial interests, both in private and public funded health care models 2. doctors concern is for relative population risk reduction, whereas patients are, or should be, concerned with absolute personal risk reduction vs cost/discomfort/inconvience, and using the former criteria yields different treatment plans than the later criteria, and 3. doctors and patients often have conflicting interests with regard to treatment time and disruption of one or the others work and social schedules).
Given divergent interests, the notion that doctors are in an absolutely superior position to make decisions is simply wrong because those decisions are not merely motivated by a different set of information but a different set of concerns. Given this i think that any attempts by the medical profession to further alter this balance in their favour is concerning.
Anyways, what are people's opinions on it?
Tue Jun 26, 9:38 AM ET
CHICAGO (AFP) - Doctors could soon be storing essential medical information under the skin of their patients, the American Medical Association says.
Devices the size of a grain of rice that are implanted with a needle could give emergency room doctors quick access to the records of chronically ill patients, the nation's largest doctors group said in a report.
The association adopted a policy Monday stating that the devices can improve the "safety and efficiency of patient care" by helping to identify patients and enabling secure access to clinical information.
These radio frequency identification tags (RFIDs) are already used by Wal-Mart and other businesses to speed up their shipping systems by sending out small signals that can be scanned more easily than bar codes.
Implanting them in people "can improve the continuity and coordination of care with resulting reductions in adverse drug events and other medical errors," said the report prepared by the association's ethics committee.
But the devices "also may pose some physical risks, compromise patient privacy, or present other social hazards."
The main concern is protecting the privacy of the information stored on the devices.
There are also health concerns.
While the devices are removable and designed to stay in place, their small size could allow them to move to other parts of a person's body.
They may also cause interference with electrical devices like defibrillators and it has not been determined what impact they would have on prescription drugs.
The report concluded that it is "likely that utilization of RFID devices for medical purposes will expand."
The US Food and Drug Administration has so far only approved "passive" tags for human implantation which cannot be altered once inserted and have a limited capacity and transmission range.
The devices are also only allowed to contain a unique identification code in order to protect patient privacy.
The FDA may eventually approve "active" devices which contain internal batteries and can be updated as a patient's condition changes.
The association warned of "potential social consequences" such as using the devices for surveillance which could be an infringement on individual liberties.
It recommended that the devices not be implanted without the informed consent of patients and that doctors monitor their use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070626/hl_af...iencetechnology (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070626/hl_afp/ushealthsciencetechnology)
I'll probably write more about this later...not so much the individual topic but as an example of concerning issues with the general relation of capitalist health care to clients. Specifically, i think that the tendency to blindly defer to 'expert' advice on the most intimate and personal matters is extremely concerning, especially when doctors and clients interests are divergent in at least three areas (1. doctors and patients have conflicting financial interests, both in private and public funded health care models 2. doctors concern is for relative population risk reduction, whereas patients are, or should be, concerned with absolute personal risk reduction vs cost/discomfort/inconvience, and using the former criteria yields different treatment plans than the later criteria, and 3. doctors and patients often have conflicting interests with regard to treatment time and disruption of one or the others work and social schedules).
Given divergent interests, the notion that doctors are in an absolutely superior position to make decisions is simply wrong because those decisions are not merely motivated by a different set of information but a different set of concerns. Given this i think that any attempts by the medical profession to further alter this balance in their favour is concerning.
Anyways, what are people's opinions on it?