Posted on 07/18/2007 10:49:01 AM PDT by TheTruthAintPretty
The American Medical Association (AMA) has officially established a code of ethics designed to protect patients receiving RFID implants. The recommendations focus on safeguarding a patient's privacy and health, and are the result of an evaluation by the AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) regarding the medical and ethical implications of RFID chips in humans, as well as a follow-up report recently released. The latter discusses the possible advantages and specific privacy and ethical issues of using RFID-enabled implantations for clinical purposes.
Entitled "Radio Frequency ID Devices in Humans," the report is presented by Robert M. Sade, M.D., who chairs the CEJA. It acknowledges that RFID's use in health care "represents another promising development in information technology, but also raises important ethical, legal and social issues." The report adds, "Specifically, the use of RFID labeling in humans for medical purposes may improve patient safety, but also may pose some physical risks, compromise patient privacy, or present other social hazards."
The AMA's report identifies three specific recommendations: The informed-consent process must include disclosure of medical uncertainties associated with these devices; physicians should strive to protect patients' privacy by storing confidential information only on RFID devices utilizing informational security similar to that required for medical records; and physicians should support research into the safety and efficacy of RFID devices implanted in human beings, and examine the role of doctors regarding the nonmedical uses of the technology.
The recommendations now serve as ethical guidelines for physicians and caregivers, explains Steven Stack, M.D., a member of the AMA's board of trustees, and are officially part of the AMA's medical ethics code. While not law, the AMA's code of ethics has long served as a standard of conduct defining the essentials of honorable physician behavior.
"The AMA is the largest professional organization representing the interest of physicians and patients in the U.S.," Stack says, "and the AMA's code of ethics is the most widely accepted guidance for physicians' professional, ethical practices." In fact, he adds, courts and governments often use the AMA's ethics codes as guidelines.
Central to the AMA's recommendations is that RFID implantable devices still need to be researched. The report indicates such implants may present physical risks to patients, because the devices can migrate under the skin and become difficult to extract. It goes on to say the risks may be minimized "by constructing RFID tags from materials that permit surrounding tissue to encase the device." Furthermore, the document cautions that RFID tags may electromagnetically interfere with electrosurgical devices (medical tools that use electrical currents for cauterization during surgery) and defibrillators, and that more research needs to be done regarding whether RFID tags might also affect the efficacy of pharmaceuticals.
From a privacy perspective, the AMA notes, RFID device security has not been fully established, so physicians "cannot assure patients that the personal information contained on RFID tags will be appropriately protected." Beyond just storing unique ID numbers on the tags, the association suggests the medical community also consider computer encryption and digital signatures to protect the data.
Moreover, the report recommends that RFID tags not be implanted or removed without the prior consent of patients, as per the AMA's policies regarding informed consent. More specifically, patients—or those acting as the legal guardians of patients—should be informed of the potential risks and benefits associated with RFID tags, as well as who will be granted access to the data contained on those tags, and the purposes for which this information will be used.
Shortly after the AMA released its report, VeriChip Corp., a maker of implantable RFID tags, applauded the association'srecommendations, saying they could help improve the acceptance of RFID implantable devices in the health-care industry. VeriChip manufactures the VeriMed system, which features a glass-encased passive RFID tag that can be injected into a patient's arm.
A hospital or medical staffer carrying a handheld interrogator can read a VeriChip's unique 16-digit identifying number, then link that patient's identity to such medical-record details as allergies, medications taken and blood type. The VeriMed system is the only human-implantable radio frequency transponder system cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the purpose of patient identification and health information.
VeriChip could not be reached by press time to comment on some of the AMA's concerns regarding RF interference, privacy and security. In the past, however, the company has claimed that when its glass-encased tag is inserted just under the skin, a small amount of scar tissue forms around it, preventing the chip from moving or migrating. In addition, VeriChip has stated that any patient data associated with the 16-digit number is stored in a secure online database, accessible only by authorized health-care workers.
Yeah — in the same way that your SSN was never meant to be a way to track you, either!
I am thinking about a specially modified version for my daughter. It stays inert until some boy comes close to her and then the alarm will beep and I will be notified.
I don’t have that problem yet, to her dismay I just follow her around for now.
Bracelets and anklets can be removed, also getting the data off them is slower. RFIDs have a lot of advantages that are perfectly legitimate for voluntary use. If you don’t want them fine, but this paranoid BS from the Luddite crowd is pathetic and disgusting.
No sometimes the problem is the patient, or random passers by. When I was about 14 I accidentally helped an Alzheimer’s patient “break out”. I didn’t know it was an old folks home or anything, I walked by on the way to the mall and this old lady in this yard/ patio asked for my help opening the gate because it was hard to access from the inside. I did, she asked to walk with me, 5 minutes later I realized the situation wasn’t what I thought it was (she was pretty loopy) got us turned around and back to the place where relieved workers spotted us and thanked me for returning her. Feces happens, it’s a crazy a world.
Tyrants and governments could care less. It's all about TOTAL control.
The difference is free will though for for someone with Alzheimer's or retardation issues that render them a risk to themselves that’s another story.
Anything is open to abuse though.
As an RN, I see this as a negligence issue. If there was a risk of a door being opened that shouldn’t have, better safe guards should have been in place. Yes, stuff happens. That’s why there are risk management departments. That doesn’t warrant across the board chipping.
As a person who realizes feces happens I see it as feces that happened. I don’t think anybody was negligent, the gate was hard to open from the inside, which seemed to be enough to stop the old lady. Where the problem came in was it was a small operation that looked like a regular house, and somebody wasn’t looking for 10 seconds, people gotta pee. No old folks home that can be mistaken for a normal house with old people has a risk management department. And nobody is saying anything about across the board chipping, that’s Luddite hyperbole, we’re just talking about how it CAN be useful SOMETIMES for SOME PATIENTS.
how about chips for sex offenders?
Fences, my friend, they're called fences. The Alzheimer's home around the corner from me has the whole place attractively fenced off and no one wanders off.
Your children are blessed with a good parent.
Yeah. And how you need it for everything to identify yourself. Now, all ‘those’ have it; yet, we were told to keep it secure.
A ‘perfect response’ BTTT.
What about it is luddite? There’s a world of difference between a bunch of people who are frightened they might lose their jobs to mechanical weaving machines and others who don’t want to be tracked. In the case of the former, the issue was productivity and in the long run the productivity provided by the machines was a net benefit to society. The latter is about privacy, not productivity. Your analogy is false. But your point is taken, you think this is all a fuss about nothing. We shall see.
The part that’s Luddite is that you’re immediately jumping to conclusions which are countered in the article. It’s not necessarily some form of tracking of people. In the case of medical RFIDs it’s about safety, if I had a medical condition where I should get a medic alert bracelet I would get a RFID just for the extra layer of protection.
I KNOW it’s a big fuss about nothing, because I’ve seen this same Luddite fuss made over and over and over and every single time the Luddites are WRONG. I already have seen, you’re crowd is wrong every single time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.