Patient confidentiality vs. cancer research.
May 19, 2001 4:24 AM   Subscribe

Patient confidentiality vs. cancer research. New rules on patient confidentiality prevent "research that recognises dangerous side effects of treatments and it would prevent research that would recognise avoidable causes of diseases and death. " What is more important: 'medical progress' or 'your medical file'?
posted by nonharmful (2 comments total)
Confidentiality of medical records is becoming more and more of a myth.

Did you read the fine print when you signed the enrollment form for your health insurance? Well, if you didn't, you gave the company your approval for them to request/obtain medical records from your present physician and any you may have listed as having seen in the past.

Work for a small company or have some past health problems that made it somewhat difficult to get the insurance to begin with? File a claim and the company will request your records to see if you have been treated for this before so they can deem it pre-existing and deny the claim. Even if you haven't been treated for the problem before, they generally still get the records and your other visits to the doctor become their knowledge also.

Confidentiality of medical records is a serious issue, but more so from the insurance companies than research.
posted by sillygit at 7:22 AM on May 19, 2001

i was going to say, silly, research and patient confidentiality go hand in hand.
posted by wantwit at 8:04 PM on May 19, 2001

« Older The truth finally comes about trashing of the...   |   The first really interesting cold war relic sale... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments