tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12625691.post3343483144143883103..comments2024-02-29T01:43:23.900-05:00Comments on Women's Bioethics Blog: Kansas Abortion Provider Ordered to Turn Over Medical RecordsLinda MacDonald Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02378544626277000243noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12625691.post-71326449733425498492008-02-02T14:50:00.000-05:002008-02-02T14:50:00.000-05:00grannygrump - I worry about a lot of things in the...grannygrump - I worry about a lot of things in these situations. I worry about the people outside of the doctor's practice who will be "blinding" the files, who will have access to the women's names, ages, where they live, medical information. I worry about notions of privacy, because it's all too common for information like that to go wild, especially the more people who're involved and can see it to begin with. I worry about people with agendas working behind the scenes, and I worry about the intimidation that's inherent in this.<BR/><BR/>It's not <I>just</I> about medical privacy, it's about intimidation - that, if you go have an abortion, it's no longer a matter between you, your partner, your medical provider. It becomes part of the larger community, and you lose the choice and control over who has the information and what they do with it.<BR/><BR/>They're removing name, age, and supposed identifying medical information - the things very necessary, at the heart, for what they purport the investigation to be about. But identifying medical information is a vague concept; does it identify me to say "tall caucasian female, blonde, history of high blood pressure, family history of cancer, deceased mother, asthmatic, on [list of medications]"? <BR/><BR/>On the face of it, you could say "oh, that describes SO many people in this country" - and it does. But they're not removing where the women live - at least, not city and state - from the records. And with that small bit of information (even just a more basic quandrant local), anyone with a background in security, informatics, and privacy can easily narrow the scope down. There have already been studies with medical records showing that, even redacting everything but general age, general medical and prescription history, it's possible to track people down. For that matter, something as simple as "lived in Seattle, moved to Albany in 2006" narrows the field dramatically. You don't need a name to trace people.<BR/><BR/>The people who will have access have access - and don't need the memories. And given that this case has been going on, in some iteration, for several years, they have certainly proven the have the time.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, my concern is this: it's a privacy issue. What treatment you receive at the hands of your doctor is your business, and not mine. And my medical records are mine, and not yours - and the only way to sanitize them to the point that they could never be traced to me [or you, or anyone] would be to remove all content, period.Kelly Hillshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15027400439081662699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12625691.post-5111054781243488052008-02-02T10:16:00.000-05:002008-02-02T10:16:00.000-05:00Do you honestly believe that the people sitting on...Do you honestly believe that the people sitting on that grand jury are going to memorize women's ages, medical information, and such, and from that somehow track down who they are?<BR/><BR/>They'd have to have photographic memories and a hell of a lot of spare time. <BR/><BR/>Who are you going to track down based on how pregnant she was on a particular date, and the fact that afterward she was no longer pregnant at all? All without knowing what state she lives in, much less what county, what city.Christina Duniganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04785550737493692252noreply@blogger.com