data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e1c00/e1c0081a9d3cb5bddef710e26d33aac835e9ab17" alt=""
At 2:28 PM 9/25/96, Phil Fraering wrote:
Of course, one area where the doctor will continue to hold a patient's records, instead of the patient, due to the nature of the current system:
Prescription medication.
Digitally signed prescriptions from qualified doctors. (Not that I support this system...I rather like the "anarchy" of Mexico, where one walks into a pharmacy in Tijuana and can buy purt near anything).
Of course, with the really big problems with this stuff, drug interactions, there's still no system for a doctor to find out what you're on thanks to another doctor. Which is why it's very important to always use the same pharmacist.
The lesson of the last decade has been that _interested patients_ often do more research about their conditions and various drug effects than their doctors can. (This happened with a friend of mine, who ultimately died, and a similar case was recently detailed about Andy Grove, of Intel, who did exhaustive research on the Net about his condition...making him (finally) a real user of the Net. There was also a movie, "Lorenzo's Oil," about this exact situation.) In any case, the issue of which drugs one may be taking and maintenance of "drug interaction databases" is not a core issue. One can selectively release the list of drugs being considered to an "oracle" machine, and check for dangerous interactions. Or tell the physician, which is certainly no worse than the current situation. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b596f/b596f95499868c79b3f6bad7f6ebcf633b65c08a" alt=""
You're absolutely correct about the informed patient bit; I have developed the policy of checking the PDR entry for any medication I take. And found out about some interactions my doctor didn't tell me about. There's a paradox about Andy Grove's situation: if he starts browsing medical databases and someone can analyze his traffic, or scans his traffic on a closed but not encrypted private email support group, they can deduce much about his condition. Now since everyone else knows about Grove's situation anyway (I suppose he talked about it) and it was brought up regarding my comments about pharmaceutical interactions (and in those comments I was acting reflexively towards a phobia about medical interactions) it's a moot point concerning the medical side and his privacy information; but the privacy angle still needs to be considered in the general case: In order for someone to do this in complete privacy, encryption would have to be ubiquitous; the norm, rather than the exception it is now. There aren't records of who looks up something in the PDR at your local library, but an ISP could gather much info about its users from what sites they frequent... Phil Fraering The above is the opinion of neither my internet pgf@acadian.net service provider nor my employer. 318/261-9649
participants (2)
-
Phil Fraering
-
tcmay@got.net