Published 18 June 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2475
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b2475

Editor's Choice

Individual or public good

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

This week, general practitioners’ representatives gave a vote of no confidence in the UK government’s plans for sharing patients’ data. If fully implemented, the NHS summary care record would put basic patient information on a national database. Delegates at the BMA’s annual conference of local medical committees voted overwhelmingly against the idea of implied consent for sharing data with third parties (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2441). Patients should be asked to opt in rather than opt out, they said.

The failings of the government’s IT programme and concerns about clinical confidentiality must be largely to blame for this lack of confidence in the system. But our report of the debate suggests a dose of vested interest as well. Being the prime data holder of patients’ medical records was seen by one speaker as "the last bargaining card" against the privatisation of general practice. This doesn’t seem a good reason to advise patients . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Who would want to be medicine’s sacrificial lamb?

Julian Sheather
BMJ 2009 338: b2414. [Extract] [Full Text]

Sharing of patients’ data should not be based on implied consent, say GPs’ representatives

Andrew Cole
BMJ 2009 338: b2441. [Extract] [Full Text]

Confidentiality and sharing health information

Julian Sheather
BMJ 2009 338: b2160. [Extract] [Full Text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Personal Injury law firm advertising in the BMJ

Thomas D Pinkney
bmj.com, 30 Jul 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>