Coroners Bill protest escalates

Tags: BMA consent Quality

03 Mar 2009

Eight healthcare organisations have called for medical records to be excluded from the data-sharing provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill, in the latest stage of the campaign against them.

The organisations, which include the British Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons and Royal College of General Practitioners, have written to justice secretary Jack Straw to raise concerns about the plans, which would allow the sharing of personal data across Whitehall departments.

The letter expresses “grave concerns” about clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which the signatories claim would grant the government unprecedented powers to access people’s confidential medical records and share them with third parties.

The letter adds: “In our view the Bill will undermine the presumption of confidentiality, corrode trust in the doctor-patient relationship and could have a disastrous impact on both the health of individuals and the public.”

The Bill has been the subject of widespread critcisim from privacy campaigners and other organisations including the BMA, the British Computer Society and the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Aides to Straw have indicated that the justice secretary now accepts that the data sharing provisions are too broad and that several amendments will be tabled when it reaches its report stage in the Commons this month.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chair of BMA council, said that if patients could not be 100% sure that their records were confidential, they would inevitably be reluctant to share vital information with their doctor.

He added: “The justice secretary has indicated that he is willing to amend this legislation to protect a person’s right to confidentiality. We welcome the fact that he is taking people’s concerns on board, and hope he will provide assurances that confidential health information will be exempt.”

The eight organisations also comprise the Medical Protection Society, Medical Defence Union, Faculty of Public Health, Royal College of Nursing and Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.

The health bodies said the Bill’s data-sharing powers could also undermine confidence in the NHS Care Records Service. The letter adds: “A loss of trust could result in patients opting out of sharing their data, affecting their care, impeding public health initiatives and impacting upon the quality of research.”

The letter says legislation already exists to enable discolsure of health information where it is not possible to obtain patient consent and that NHS Connecting for Health and the Information Centre are working on proposals to enable controlled access to anonoymised and pseudoanonymised data for research purposes.

It adds: “With these existing mechaisms in place we can see no case for introducing sweeping powers to enable ministers to order the release of health information.”

The organisations call for an early meeting with Jack Straw to discuss their concerns. The Bill is due to go to committee stage today.

Fiona Barr

Reader's Comments

Amazing

04 Mar 09 17:03

Is this Government devious or just thick? It beggars belief that they haven't thought about the ramifications of this bill before getting so close to presenting it.

Thick or devious?

04 Mar 09 23:03

I'd lean to the devious personally, in trying to get this through hidden in a coroners bill, but thick in thinking that they could get away with it - assuming they don't get away with it of course. Please ensure your MP knows your views, and how it will colour your future voting intentions!

Comparing MP's letters

maryhawking@tigers.demon.co.uk

05 Mar 09 20:03

Lots of people have been writing to MPs about this - and other issues. Comparing replies in different constituencies, there were a number of identical responses. Does this mean that the party to which these MPs belong has identified this as an issue, and the MPs are following the party line - like a row of rubber stamps - or collusion among the MPs: maybe they all share the same letter writer?

Could I sugest a further possibility for clause 152 being included - so inappropriately - in the tail end of an unrelated bill might be to distract attention from the bill involved? Just a thought.

Has anybody asked the patients what they thinks?

09 Mar 09 09:03

Have any of the stately e- health insiders from the BMA, RCS et al ever asked their patients what they think about data-sharing?

Currently, I, an e-health outsider, am receiving treatment from a specialist foundation hospital. My records are held in other hospitals. When one of the clinicians attempts to access items in my record in one of these other hospitals, it is like pulling teeth. This inserts delay into my treatment, and could endanger my health.

I believe I am not alone among patients in wanting more data-sharing not less. I note that when surveys are done about access to care records, patients seem be far less keen on so-called "doctor-patient confidentiality" than doctors. These heretical views tend to be brushed off by the insiders.

re: Has anyone asked the patients what they think?

09 Mar 09 15:03

Clause 152 isn't about appropriate sharing of information between healthcare professionals caring for that individual: it is (or was - I hear it has been discarded by Jack Straw) about sharing whole databases. Not *your* records to enable *your* treatment but everyone's records with whomsoever the minister in any department feels would help his or her policy objectives. There is a difference.