Skip to comments.Big Brother to track your medication compliance with electronic transmitters in pills
Posted on 04/27/2010 6:30:56 AM PDT by Scythian
Now that the U.S. government has achieved its monopoly over health care, new technologies are in the works that will allow the government to remotely monitor and track whether ordinary citizens are complying with taking medications prescribed by conventional doctors. One new technology described at the U.S. Senate Committee on Aging allows "pills to be electronically outfitted with transmitters" which would track the patient's compliance with medications and broadcast that information back to government health care enforcers who check for "compliance and efficacy."
"Emerging technologies allow pills to be electronically outfitted with transmitters to communicate with the user's wristwatch that shows that the pill has been consumed," said University of Virginia professor Robin Felder at the committee meeting. "Broadband connectivity of these devices would allow the electronic medical record to be updated with regard to medication compliance and efficacy."
This would allow government health operators, for example, to know whether you've taken all your prescribed psychiatric medications. If you veer from the course of pharmaceuticals prescribed by your doctor, health care enforcement agents could be dispatched to your door to make sure you start taking your pills.
Parents who currently attempt to protect their children from toxic medical therapies such as chemotherapy could be closely monitored by government medical enforcement agents. If you try to flush dangerous pharmaceuticals down the toilet instead of actually taking them, the lack of an electronic tracking signal will let your health care observers know you didn't really take the pills.
Click the link on the main post for the entire story or click here http://www.naturalnews.com/028663_health_care_technology.html
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalnews.com ...
death with a ‘click’, how efficient
I sure would trust a government doctor to do this medicating, but hey why can’t he speak English.
Like most technologies, there is another side to this, which is beneficial. Of all the things we have to worry about, I’d put this WAY down near the bottom of the list.
Maybe this is really what lies behind the push for I2, the need all this broadband for tracking every little thing about us, which health care is going to make possible ...
This is totally approriate for people who've been convicted of a crime or avoided conviction by claiming mental illness. I wish the government would keep violent crazies locked up, but if they're going to let paranoid schizophrenics and child molesters roam the streets on condition that they take their anti-psychotic or chemical castration pills, then I'm happy to have these perps pill-taking compliance monitored.
As for everybody else, if anyone tries to make you take information-transmitting pills, it's time to exercise your 2A rights in a very direct way.
BIG BROTHER! I don’t want the government telling me to take a DAM. pill and when to take it.
Big Tobacco Giants to track Obummer`s nicotine habit compliance with electronic transmitters in his cigarettes
Could be, but I think the Obama regime is just power hungry and wants to control everything — especially anything that portends to control free speech..
I sure won’t be taking any of those government remote control pills, how about you?
We are people, not R2D2s.
Oh well, a little Ex-Lax should do the trick, and don't wear a Watch. lol
The day this goes into affect is the day I unload my arsenal.
OK ... while the METHODS may seem totalitarian, ya gotta consider the upside, and there really is one.
This medical tracking would NOT be for ALL meds, only certain ones and certain patients. For instance —
80% or more of ALL healthcare costs are incurred by people with CHRONIC conditions and those costs (the excessive ones) directly correlate to NON-compliance with their meds or lifestyle. For example, a diabetic, obese, hypertensive, eldery, low income (Medicaid/Medicare) patient who doesn’t take their meds, doesn’t manage their diet, doesn’t check their blood sugar, etc., ends up in the emergency room twice a year simply because they did not do what they easily could have. Those visits to the ER cost you and me a TON of money. THAT money could be saved by making sure that people do what they need to to stay ‘healthy’ and out of critical care units.
Now at a lower level, I have cholesterol issues that I manage (successfully) by taking a pill EVERY DAY. I see that as analogous to wearing a seat belt EVERY TIME I get in the car. If I have a wreck and am injured because I didn’t wear my seat belt (as REQUIRED by law) then my insurer OUGHT to be able to say I share culpability for my injuries, and respond appropriately. So if I don’t take my pill the way I ought to, I have WILLFULLY contributed to an enhanced risk of heart disease, same as if I didn’t watch my diet and get exercise.
What’s my point? If someone is going to cover my risk of illness or injury with insurance, they can set REASONABLE requirements on my behaviour and my compliance or else move me into a higher risk (ie higher premium) group.
It happens with smokers, so why not with pill takers?
Just stirring the pot.
Even if you are convicted of a crime, the government does not own your body.
I highly recommend everyone check the website:
See what the side effects of the medications that are being handed out like candy to you now cause. Doctors currently have no idea what is wrong with you after your 5-minute visit. The SOP is to hand you two or three prescriptions and send you on your way. I go home and throw most of them away.
You’re stirring the pot with an idiot stick.
In a free country, citizens are not chattels of the state no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it.
But the corporatists/soviets corrupting our government have changed that.
Seems to me when you go in for your required 6 month revist to the doc who does a blood test and your levels are not down, he would ask three questions: are you following your diet, are you exercising, are you taking your medication. If you respond no, that is the point where a report should be made if one is to be made at all. Having someone following me around with a satilite tracking stations to determine whether I am doing what I am supposed to do is beyond the pale IMO. What is next, wearing a bracelet with your locator so if the government wants to find you they just punch in your locator code? No, I think the present day Nazis have enough power over our lives, they don’t need any more...I am not an ant working in an ant colony responding to chemical stimuli der leader.
Thank you for your thoughtful, reasonable and principled reply ;-)
The mentality behind this is the #1 thing we have to worry about. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I wish we would hang them humanely with a good quality, reusable rope. Any technology that can be used to manipulate violent crazies can be used to manipulate you, 2A or no.
That business is going to stop soon. We're going to monitor you or even administer you meds remotely and make sure that you won't make any more mistakes.
Gentlemen, we can rebuild her. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first obedient woman. ExTexasRedhead will be that woman. We can make her better than she was before. Better, quieter, fully medicated.
You are welcome.
Your position is wrong on so many levels, it was the most appropriate response.
Nice insult, but you miss my point. (bear in mind that I would NOT agree to such compliance methods being enforced for ambulatory anitbiotics or statins or analgesics, but MIGHT consider them to be a good idea for very high risk chronic care patients.)
**IF** you agree to health INSURANCE coverage, then your insurer has a (arguable) right to ascertain if you are behaving in ways commensurate with the risk they agreed to cover. For example, again, your health insurance premiums are lower IF you are indeed a non-smoker. An INSURANCE company that you MUTUALLY contract with has a right to ‘know’ that you are behaving in expected or promised ways. IF you don’t like it (their terms) then you have the right to not contract with that insurer.
I agree that we are not chattels of the state, and careful reading of my post would reveal I do not sponsor OR spin that idea.
**IF** the gummint were to become our ‘insurer’ and then require us to participate according to its terms AND ALSO implement this RFID tagging scheme, then I as well WOULD have a real problem with it.
But please take a moment to consider two practical upsides —
(1) in a hospital environment, such medical tagging can help make certain your sick family member received the right medicine, the right dose, at the right time.
(2) in a chronic care environment for your eldery grandmother you can have peace of mind knowing she is taking her meds that maintain her quality of life, AND also know of AEs (adverse reactions/events) in time to heal her.
My point is that WITH CONSENT there IS a place for this technology. Sure it can be used for evil, but don’t over react.
There is a similiar article on CNSNews.
It includes reference to e-Health or e-Care which “will allow doctors to interact with their patients through innovations such as video chats, telephone health checkups, and home-health monitoring devices that relay data over wireless Internet connections”:
Thanks for the reasoned reply. Remembering that I am only advocating this for certain patients at high risk. Using the same straw man of an elderly, obese, hypertensive, COPD, Type-2 diabetic patient ... 6 months is too long. Real time tracking is technically possible but at huge cost (ie in-patient monitoring). FOR THE RIGHT HIGH-RISK patient, daily monitoring has a real value to the patient and the people covering the costs (family and insurer). It also adds peace of mind.
The technology is as simple as an RFID tag in the ‘pill’. The dreaded tracker could count the pills in the bottle on a daily basis and also have a pretty good guess that one or more was in your body.
I DO NOT like the gummint having a role in this, cuz I DO NOT TRUST them with the data, or with their intent.
See link at posr #30
You cannot maintain a culture of freedom when corporations have ‘rights’ to anything.
You cannot maintain a culture of freedom when you make exceptions to the very foundation of freedom, that YOU own your body, not your government, not your hospital, not any corporation, nor any socialist ‘do gooders’. There is no moral, monetary, or ethical justification to claim that any of these entities own your body and not you.
When you break apart the most fundamental requirement for freedom, into, ‘well in this case the hospital can own your body’ you are destroying freedom. It cannot be preserved when people are willing to ‘compromise’ it.
OK. You’ve called BS and you’ve told me I am wrong in numerous ways.
So far your argument is without merit since it is devoid of substance. Although I do respect your position.
Please understand that I DO NOT want our gummint, particularly THIS FEDERAL gummint to get anywhere near this. They are untrustworthy and unethical and immoral.
I will just say one more time that (a) the technology has a place in the RIGHT patient care environment, and (b) an insurer covering your risks has the right to place conditions on your behavior when covering that risk. (you can fire them if you don’t like the conditions)
The moral and ethical concerns of giving the government this power are extremely troubling.
Can we be at peace now?
Of course we can be at peace.
I simply disagree that such technology has any place among sane individuals.
Accepting such a position allows the advancement of “monitoring for your own good”.
And i reject that.
So do you think the government has no right to imprison someone who has been convicted of a crime? If imprisonment is permissible, certainly trakcing medication compliance is permissible, as it involves much less restriction on the convict's freedom. And I presume you are also opposed to the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crime, and how overwhelming the evidence of who committed it?
The people can imprison criminals based on a jury of PEERS.
The ‘government’ bureaucrats cannot, if you interpret the Constitution as a document to protect freedom.
You are changing the subject however. Since corporations were allowed to own and run hospitals in the 1960s, the path to socialism and socialist control over us was set.
I need to take a hammer and pulverize every pill before I take it. It’s just this “thing” I have.
By the way good people, if Obamacare is implemented, cancel your living will by stapling a statement to it saying; “I want to live! Keep me alive! Spare no expense!, over your signature and a date.” This will bankrupt any health system very quickly.
That's why I hate insurance. It is a private form of collectivism that leads to public collectivism. I'd prefer to cover my own risks and reap my own benefits but now we will suffer under a new law that will enslave us all. As slaves, we might eat better, dress better, exercise more, be assigned a better job or mate and even enjoy life more.
I would take my own chances, reasonable or not.
This is insidious ... The death panels are materializing.
Pulverizing may work for a time, but then ...
Eugenics in a bottle.
Just wrap the pill in tin foil...voila!
The dude totally dismisses the reasons the technology is being developed. Probably because he is biased and has an agenda.
OK, I agree with everything you wrote. I just think you are not applying it to my points.
If you let your kids drive the new car, you tell them your conditions and rules and expectations. You can do this because you own the car, you are paying for it, your pay the insurance, AND you are the parent. YOU may decide to put a GPS tracking deice in the car or the kids’ phones or you may not. But you have the right to do that, morally and ethically.
IF, on the other hand your child bought their own car, pays their own insurance, passed their 18th birthday, has their own apartment (you get the idea) they CAN do and go where they want to in that car, even if it is against your wishes and guidance.
Now, shifting that to healthcare ...
You can make your kids take their meds. You can make them eat well. You can chase them off the X-box and push out the back door to play. Once they are adults they ARE at liberty to do what they please.
But are they at liberty to do what they please in ways that adds cost to YOUR LIFE, and the lives of your neighbors?
by way of analogy, explore the ethics here for a moment.
A child is diagnosed with leukemia. The parents are christian scientists or animists or whatever and refuse treatment. Is it right or wrong for the ‘state’ to enforce chemotherapy? Similarly, a child has appendicitis. Untreated that child will likely die. Again, is it right to REQUIRE that child to be treated, even if it is against the will of the child or the child’s parents?
So, if we have people (of majority age now) how injure themselves and add a burden to society by not taking care of themselves and ending up critically ill, perhaps repeatedly, ... and adding REAL COST to others’ lives by driving up the costs of healthcare overall ... are they at liberty to do that? If you have a fat lazy slob next door who has a ‘free’ scooter for trips to WalMart, drinks too much and smokes, eats junk, has an oxygen tank and a one pint bag of prescription pills provided ‘free,’ and gets picked up once a month by the ‘free’ medical transportation service scam ... wouldn’t it be nice if they truly shared in the responsibility for their health AND complied with their course of care? IF they can get all this for ‘free’ don’t you wish there were some strings of responsibility and compliance attached?
Part of me says HELL YEAH! But the libertarian in me says NOW WAY.
I DO NOT want the gummint to be an insurer. I do not want the gummint to act as my health care provider. But part of me sees a value in getting high risk people to do a better job of complying, even if they don’t want to.
I think with the new Fed Medical system people will be lucky to just get any medication at all let alone have a very expensive electronic medical surveillance device attached to every patient in the country.
With the new 3rd world economy and infrastructure about to settle on this country, I don't see the feasibility of justifying the national distribution of these devices for standard use.
Agreed. Insurance is a substitute for liquid cash on hand ready to cover risks.
Few folks have the cash to cover the risk of losing their house to fire/storm or their health to catastrophic illness.
We ought to be able to cover others risks out of investments. But that is easier said than done.
I see it as one of consent when it comes to the technology.
Suppose I have a problem with irregular heart rhythms. I agree to have a pacemaker installed. Let’s suppose the ‘newest’ models are bluetooth enabled and once a day or continuously upload telemetry to my cardiologist. Because the doc has this info, he can improve my course of care.
I am OK with that, as long as I said it’s OK to implant said device.
The ISSUE comes in when the FEDS *MANDATE* that I MUST have that device implanted and I *MUST* upload data. IF I don;t have a choice, THAT is a problem.
A tougher one is when Kaiser or BlueCross says “if we are going to continue to cover you for your tachycardia, you need to have the model 1500 implanted and comply with the upload requirements.” hmmm tougher choice.
Anyway, thanks for participating in the ‘debate’.
Most people equate business with the market. In fact there’s a difference:
Tea partiers: market friendly, big biz hostile
real republicans: market friendly, big biz friendly
Democrats: big biz friendly, market hostile
Big pharma embraces libs cuz they lock them in as permanent players; in this way they have less to fear from new disruptive technologies and entrepreneurs. This also lessens the boom/bust cycle. So in short pharma becomes an extension of the US gov’t.
But what if they hear you mention you support the “tea party” and they send a malfunction code to your pacemaker? /sarc (well half sarc anyway)
Well I certainly agree with the government intrusion part.
And in a vacuum, if the information was strictly between your Dr. and yourself and your permission was given, then we are in agreement. [altho my Dr. seems to be so busy that if a prescription lapses, its takes several attempts to reinstate it. How would he ever keep up with “monitoring” my everyday care?]
Problem is that it won’t be in a vacuum. Its not going to be one on one with your Dr. It will be shared and it will be required to be reported to some database in DC or wherever.
They are demanding that identifiable info be reported for “research purposes”! What??? Thats somewhere in the massive cramdown...I don’t have the chapter and verse but it is there. A carved out exception to your supposed “rights” under HIPPA [which only keeps YOUR relatives from knowing your conditions...there are so many exceptions that any bureaucrat can get the info they want.]
Now someone wants to “monitor” if I’ve taken my drugs?
I don’t have alzheimers and I’m not in a mental ward somewhere. I don’t need a mommy, a daddy or a nanny.
I think we agree on that.
The defect in your reasoning is that Obamacare is forced upon you by the government. You must comply or face punishment. It isn't a voluntary contract with mutually beneficial characteristics. It is blackmail on pain of lost of liberty and property.