Was the Guardian unduly concerned about plans to upload the medical records of 50 million people in England on to a national electronic database, known as the Spine?
We ran a series of articles last year pointing out that no IT database could be guaranteed to be secure. The government was effectively saying that sensitive information about people's medical history - including abortions, HIV status and other deeply personal matters - should be put on a computer system without asking for the individual's consent.
Our campaign made a difference. Health ministers changed the policy to allow individual patients to opt out of the scheme as long as they were informed about the possible risks. (For example, if they were involved in a traffic accident far from home, paramedics would not be able to access potentially life-saving information that was stored on the Spine.)
Now we have the first evidence from Connecting for Health, the NHS's information technology arm, on whether people want to exercise the opt-out. During trials in Bolton, Bury, Dorset and south Birmingham, 500,000 patients were told they might be among the first to have a summary of their medical records uploaded. Less than 1% asked to opt out.
The result was not conclusive. So far only a few GP practices in those areas have started uploading the summaries. Patients registered with other practices may not yet have seen any need to opt out. In spite of local information campaigns, others may be blissfully unaware of what is going on.
There is still heated argument among GPs in Bolton, where doctors providing out-of-hours cover will be the first to gain access to the electronic records. The Local Medical Committee came out against the scheme and a minority of practices in the town have vowed not to join it.
What do you think? Are we witnessing an early tentative step towards an Orwellian state? Or should we be welcoming a technological advance that can save lives?
.png?w=600)
