Orwell arrived, but a bit late.

Now it is not often that a straight out Catch-22 real life scenario comes along, so read on :

So the Feds have been trying DownUnda to rollout 'personalised health care records' ( PEHCR ) for the last 4 years. Allegedly the idea is to allow/introduce efficiencies if people want information available ( otherwise held in strict confidence within your local doctor's record system ) if they are away from their usual place of care. Emergencies, forgot to bring the ongoing prescription to the holiday resort, etc. So far so good ....

So the enactment is to have a service, web accessible, funded and operated by the Feds. Using Opera and Java. Secured by a 4-digit pin through a web portal. Holding whatever you choose to place there.

Very few have taken this up, bar some scattered test scenarios eg. nursing home residents, a captive audience who don't get off the premises much. So no surprise that no problems came to light during 'feasibility studies'. The punters generally don't trust either the internet or the Feds, a bit neck and neck as to whom has the least regard. Also no doctor wanted to be involved as the Feds required, and still do, the medicos personal liability on the accuracy of information once it becomes held by them ( on their premises, on their hardware, run by their staff .... ). Of course if you are unconscious from a car accident, who then quotes your secret 4 digit pin to retrieve data ?

So the current Fed health minister has signed off on an opt-out clause. For the very system that he decried as a bold intrusion on privacy a mere year ago ... when he was the shadow/opposition health spokesman. Meaning everybody is 'in' now, unless they choose to go 'out'. Except it's been kept hush-hush, so no one knows they have any option to exercise in any regard. The vast majority of Aussies have never even heard that such a system exists at all.

Now unbeknownst to me : the providers of clinical software were required, for their ongoing certification ( ie. the Feds have regulated the health industry's software production for some time ), to re-jig the usual interfaces & backend in order to make the PEHCR record creation ( for upload to the Feds ) easier. Except it applied a default pathway during a recent upgrade that actually, and erroneously, applied a filter to the database. With the effect that during normal consultations important information has been hidden from users ( the doctor sitting across from you ), that didn't know of the filter, nor how to un-apply it, due to lack of knowlegde of it's existence. One doesn't know what one doesn't know ....

[ BTW : the 'P' and the 'C' in PEHCR mean 'personalised' and 'control'. Now isn't there a Brere Rabbit story that matches here ? Or was it Through The Looking Glass. ]

The latest argument is - believe or not - that while the original aims of the scheme may not have been 'targeted well', there will be job losses if the scheme does not proceed ie. The Concorde/Western-Front excuse : "don't let the boys die in vain" etc.

Now call me paranoid if you wish, but :

- by both plebiscite, High Court challenge ( constitutional grounds ) and outright electoral failure to gain a mandate, an 'Australia Card' centralised identity register has been rejected on numerous occasions in the last 25 years.

- this system is now enabled to perform precisely that function, even if no health data is ever tabled by or for the punters.

Fortunately it doesn't involve illegal hacking of say, private mobile phones. Maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy. :-)

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) Oooops. I forgot to mention. I can only legally reveal medical information ( on pain of litigation and complaint to those who register me ) if :

- the patient agrees.

OR

- a court order signed by a judge says so.

OR

- under oath in the Coroner's Court upon direct questioning by, or on behalf of, the Coroner.