These are two extremely serious issues. In the case of Jeanette Johnston, the fact that her benefits have been stopped for six months or more despite the immense seriousness of her condition should be a case for very grave concern. It looks like the government is flagrantly negligent of her safety, in order to make a few savings on her benefits bill. If nothing else, it shows that the government is entirely unconcerned about the health of their victims, or clients, if they prefer, and indicates that anyone unfortunate enough to suffer from similar life-threatening conditions will be treated with the same callous indifference as to their well-being. If this was a private company, then I would imagine that there could be reasonable grounds for bringing a court action for either criminal negligence or incompetence. As it is the government, and taking people to court requires money that those on benefits simply don’t have, there is absolutely no chance of this.
Dr Gancz deserves to be praise for his stance against selling his patients’ records. There are a number of privacy issues involved here, and I really do mean to blog about this later. Campaigners against genetic testing and the commercialisation of genetic information have raised a point that also seems relevant here. Their objection is that insurance companies may purchase genetic information to determine, who is susceptible to particular diseases, and then raise their insurance premiums accordingly. So far the legislation makes no mention of genetic testing, though I am in no doubt that, if this becomes more practicable, the government will be keen to sell that to the highest bidder as well. However, it is by no means unlikely that insurance and other companies could purchase people’s medical records in order to assess whether they, or the people in a particular locality, are high or low risk. there is also the problem that it has been known for companies, who have made a scientific discovery based on genetic information, have patented this so that they have intellectual ownership of this part of the person’s genetic makeup. It’s not too far-fetched to imagine similar biotech and pharmaceutical companies also trying to patent the discoveries made from the medical records they have purchased. Your ownership of your genetic heritage is most definitely at stake here.
A principled stand: Dr Gordon Gancz, of Oxford, is fighting the government’s plan to sell his patients’ confidential records to private companies for profit.
A refreshing change seems to be sweeping through local news media here in the UK, with stories starting to appear about people who are fighting unjust behaviour by the government.
The rest of us should support this.
For example: Workington woman Jeanette Johnston, 29, had a job until recently but has been forced to give it up due to congenital health problems which mean she has already had a kidney removed and will need a heart and lung transplant in the future.
She had been receiving Disability Living Allowance but this was stopped last August after aids including bed ladders were fitted at her home, following recommendations from an occupational health expert.
DWP advisors told her that the benefits would stop until she was reassessed for the…
View original post 593 more words
Beastrabban\'s Weblog 
February 10, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
he needs to be awarded a medal for it but isn’t there more doctors out there who can also say those words no more
February 10, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
There probably are. However, unless we give Dr Gancz and others like him our support, there will no doubt be fewer. Mike’s already mentioned in his posts about Jeremy Hunt’s proposed selling off of our collective medical records how doctors are liable to pressure from the government if they refuse to do so.