OPTING OUT OF MEDICAL RECORDS
This article, by an oncologist, lays out the situation quite well:
Patients trust their secrets to doctors, not the government or the tax office
I have a friend aged in her 30s who for the last eight years or so has had what she describes as "chronic cancer"; a slow moving cancer which has metastisized but doesn't look like finishing her off for quite a few years yet. Her doctors play whack-a-mole with each new complication as they arise and obviously proper communication between her many specialists is vital. For her, a "My Health Record" must be a no brainer; the advantages are enormous, as trumpeted by the systems supporters, in spite of the worrying privacy implications.
I, on the other hand, have been comprehensively screwed in the past by the medical fraternity and have excellent reasons to want to maintain an iron grip on who gets to see what from my medical records. I opted out within about 10 minutes of reading the first post of this thread. No matter what the supporters may think of the advantages, the downside of potential loss of privacy is simply far too damaging for me.
The article referenced above basically says the same thing; the concept is very attractive and will undoubtedly improve healthcare for many participants, yet the execution, the security, and the potential for future access by elements of government who have no business poking about in your medical records are serious problems.
The good bits are real, so are the bad bits.
Patients trust their secrets to doctors, not the government or the tax office
I have a friend aged in her 30s who for the last eight years or so has had what she describes as "chronic cancer"; a slow moving cancer which has metastisized but doesn't look like finishing her off for quite a few years yet. Her doctors play whack-a-mole with each new complication as they arise and obviously proper communication between her many specialists is vital. For her, a "My Health Record" must be a no brainer; the advantages are enormous, as trumpeted by the systems supporters, in spite of the worrying privacy implications.
I, on the other hand, have been comprehensively screwed in the past by the medical fraternity and have excellent reasons to want to maintain an iron grip on who gets to see what from my medical records. I opted out within about 10 minutes of reading the first post of this thread. No matter what the supporters may think of the advantages, the downside of potential loss of privacy is simply far too damaging for me.
The article referenced above basically says the same thing; the concept is very attractive and will undoubtedly improve healthcare for many participants, yet the execution, the security, and the potential for future access by elements of government who have no business poking about in your medical records are serious problems.
The good bits are real, so are the bad bits.
I've opted out. Having seen what AVMED do to pilots in the AAT and assuming they get access to electronic records, your medical certificate is at the mercy of every treating doctor and doctors do make diagnostic mistakes. In addition some conditions may be transient and have no lasting impact; e.g. "suspected heart attack" - turns out to be a throat spasm. "Depression" - heart to heart in a surgery after a divorce or death in the family, "Asthma" - turns out to be hay fever. "Illegal drug intoxication" - childhood dare by a 16year old. The problem with electronic records: once an entry is made, it's impossible to erase and it's there for posterity. Furthermore, nothing a Government says today can bind a future Government.
Last edited by Sunfish; 31st Jul 2018 at 02:25.
Tonight it looks like they're changing the legislation to prohibit access without a warrant, and giving people the option to permanently delete.
It doesn't solve the hacking issue, but will appease the concerns about the ATO etc getting your data - until a subsequent govt quietly changes the law back again.
It doesn't solve the hacking issue, but will appease the concerns about the ATO etc getting your data - until a subsequent govt quietly changes the law back again.
From my understanding, the changes won’t affect CASA from applying to, and potentially accessing private health information. Nothing to hide, but still a no thank you from me.
My guess is that CASA will simply add it to their form as a tick box giving them permission to access your medical records and that the box must be ticked otherwise it cannot be submitted.
Yep. The line was that there was no problem. Now the line is that there is a problem and it will be fixed by legislation. (Don’t tell anyone, but the legislation can be changed again in future such that access may be obtained without warrant. And the concept of permanent deletion of a record held by government is laughable.)
To me the primary problems don’t include potential access by bureaucrats on a mission (although that will always remain a problem). Rather, the primary problems are that:
- the record can be inaccurate, as a consquence of data entry stuff ups, and
- there is no real security of government records.
To me the primary problems don’t include potential access by bureaucrats on a mission (although that will always remain a problem). Rather, the primary problems are that:
- the record can be inaccurate, as a consquence of data entry stuff ups, and
- there is no real security of government records.
To me the primary problems don’t include potential access by bureaucrats on a mission (although that will always remain a problem). Rather, the primary problems are that:
- the record can be inaccurate, as a consequence of data entry stuff ups, and
- the record can be inaccurate, as a consequence of data entry stuff ups, and
However it is on the record that I supposedly had a history of high blood pressure and the Doctor just quietly dropped the prescription.
I’d be going that doctor for negligence, Neville.
My concern on the data accuracy front is prompted by a recent and very fleeting brush with the medical ‘system’. I kept having to say, to some medical bureaucrat staring at a computer screen: No, I’m not Lead Balloon from Kickatinalong. I’m Lead Balloon from Upper Gaffa. “But the computer says...”. Who knows whose information could end up on ‘my’ record.
My concern on the data accuracy front is prompted by a recent and very fleeting brush with the medical ‘system’. I kept having to say, to some medical bureaucrat staring at a computer screen: No, I’m not Lead Balloon from Kickatinalong. I’m Lead Balloon from Upper Gaffa. “But the computer says...”. Who knows whose information could end up on ‘my’ record.
Announced today that a 'court order' will be required to access yr records..
But with CAsA past histories that wont pose any problems with time or taxpayers money....plenty of both to pee away when there's an agenda.
If they want one , they'll get one. LSG will write it for them.
For example...I requested a CAsA person who entered my hangar un-announced and un-identified to absent himself from the building, with intemperate language., ie Foxtrot Oscar. I never went near the xxxxx either!
Two weeks later I received a Summons for threatening a Commonwealth officer.!
Statements were chalk and cheese, of great variance and he invoked the phrase that they use if you talk loudly to them, ..'he adopted an aggressive stance'
Whatever that means in reality..like hands up for fisticuffs or something.??
He never even turned up to court...but how the record showed , as I found out 10 years later that I had been convicted and fined $500.?? A conviction that never was.
So the 'Soviet System' can do whatever it does with impunity. With medical records it wont be any different.
Opt out completed last night
But with CAsA past histories that wont pose any problems with time or taxpayers money....plenty of both to pee away when there's an agenda.
If they want one , they'll get one. LSG will write it for them.
For example...I requested a CAsA person who entered my hangar un-announced and un-identified to absent himself from the building, with intemperate language., ie Foxtrot Oscar. I never went near the xxxxx either!
Two weeks later I received a Summons for threatening a Commonwealth officer.!
Statements were chalk and cheese, of great variance and he invoked the phrase that they use if you talk loudly to them, ..'he adopted an aggressive stance'
Whatever that means in reality..like hands up for fisticuffs or something.??
He never even turned up to court...but how the record showed , as I found out 10 years later that I had been convicted and fined $500.?? A conviction that never was.
So the 'Soviet System' can do whatever it does with impunity. With medical records it wont be any different.
Opt out completed last night
No point in the DAS making a statement because nothing he or the government says can bind a future government, period.
All it would take for example is a future accident traced to a mental health issue and the public would clamour for pilots records to be compulsorily trawled for any mental health symptoms, no matter how small or ancient and the government of the day would gladly comply. Data protection my arse.
From what I've heard anecdotally, a lot of professional pilots already have two doctors, a DAME and the real one - a subterfuge allegedly forced on them by AVMED's unhelpful attitude to some medical conditions.
Compulsory electronic records would drive such folk into avoiding treatment altogether or self medication - making us all less safe.
All it would take for example is a future accident traced to a mental health issue and the public would clamour for pilots records to be compulsorily trawled for any mental health symptoms, no matter how small or ancient and the government of the day would gladly comply. Data protection my arse.
From what I've heard anecdotally, a lot of professional pilots already have two doctors, a DAME and the real one - a subterfuge allegedly forced on them by AVMED's unhelpful attitude to some medical conditions.
Compulsory electronic records would drive such folk into avoiding treatment altogether or self medication - making us all less safe.
Last edited by Sunfish; 1st Aug 2018 at 09:56.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No point in the DAS making a statement because nothing he or the government says can bind a future government, period.
All it would take for example is a future accident traced to a mental health issue and the public would clamour for pilots records to be compulsorily trawled for any mental health symptoms, no matter how small or ancient and the government of the day would gladly comply. Data protection my arse.
From what I've heard anecdotally, a lot of professional pilots already have two doctors, a DAME and the real one - a subterfuge allegedly forced on them by AVMED's unhelpful attitude to some medical conditions.
Compulsory electronic records would drive such folk into avoiding treatment altogether or self medication - making us all less safe.
All it would take for example is a future accident traced to a mental health issue and the public would clamour for pilots records to be compulsorily trawled for any mental health symptoms, no matter how small or ancient and the government of the day would gladly comply. Data protection my arse.
From what I've heard anecdotally, a lot of professional pilots already have two doctors, a DAME and the real one - a subterfuge allegedly forced on them by AVMED's unhelpful attitude to some medical conditions.
Compulsory electronic records would drive such folk into avoiding treatment altogether or self medication - making us all less safe.
AVMED at CASA is in the business of mitigating risk and liability at all cost. They are not in the business of applying reasonable evidence-based approaches to medical presentations that place the pilot at the centre of care. I have seen AVMED overrule countless expert opinions in support of medical certification because of negligible long-term risk they'd prefer to sweep away (in the remote chance it comes back to bite them).
I completely support any patient/person who has reservations about the health record and would always encourage them to be critically aware of anything that poses a risk to their best interests (both in the short and long term).
Last edited by cnnnn1; 2nd Aug 2018 at 01:13.
