[wsishealth-and-ict] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [Pwd] missing the larger picture-almost final version 4.3 of WSIS CS statement

[dr.l.d.misek-falkoff]

- As an aside lest Noahs e-flood overwhelm us, I think it were perhaps well to condense the list of addressees at this point it others agree (though we needn't ,and its for all to decide,  because the conversations can become too terse  and misleading interpretations result before time to work out what people are trying to say.  That is up to all here; meanwhile we are addressing basically the whole world, so I post just to clarify that I was quoting your paragraph: 

>"As stated in our paragraphs what is meant is access to scientific information and knowledge by consumers and health professionals.  I was not referring to individual physical and mental health records, which is addressed in the privacy paragraph we submitted for the health section.  The access would be made possible via ICT which would need to be supported by the allocation of government and other community resources"  [underlining here added for discussion]. 

and attempting to learn more about the concepts of access therein. 

Re your paragraph, I have endeavored to respond to these important concepts as posed  step by step (though just a first attempt, and appreciative of your own reply). I respond that we agree: the privacy or relative privacy of records interests us all.  From my own background researching and computationally implementing medical record retrieval (EMR) systems starting in the 1960's working with a medley of intake and output assumptions and formats, with and for hospital and universities, though not my present focus or expertise, my goodness not so claimed, I feel we can be content that wide open unrestricted access to Health records is untenable.  Well, almost, because to read some commentators not unstriking in their suggestions, possibly if  nothing were private then  nothing would either be stigmatized.   (And on the third hand,  what is private about HIPAA regulations even now - and who is shielded etc., and who allowed to read records, etc., for example - the start-up list for Q and A  is a candidate set of extended dinner conversations at least). .

In sum on our subjects and 'back to the future' .. of access matters via ICT... and with room for reconsideration, as I have read your prior post it seemed to refer to access for all as far as scientific information etc.  But this seemed not to refer to health records.  I would as set forth above and prior indeed think this quite controversial. The next sentence continues right through on access matters.  We do I think need to understand what sorts of things people should have access to.  Where allocated resources should be spent.

But whatever our varying specific view, I cannot imagine a more dedicated group of discussants than we have here.  If it takes a bit of work and storage to try to understand others' perspectives it is worth it.  My own perspective would include significant "patient" / client / consumer access to health records (some providers choose to do this even now)  and also "right" and "means" to amend or correct them. We have had our voices heard and would welcome others coming in with theirs too; we may or may agree on these issues.  

And to encourage mutual enlightenment, a query:   to what do people here feel there should be access to in e-Health areas? And what should one be only able to read but not add one's own comments?

It is not only of course in electronic communications contexts that these topics have vibrancy, but now that access is technically more feasible on global scales (and indeed there are many existing e-Health records-sub networks in place for "professional" access as we "speak)", then now or later we will have to focus on who gets access and to what and why and where and when, and how  - to eye things from a journalistic canon of considerations.

Hoping to converse with you on these topics in the future but taking pause for other posts and suggestions, I set sail my very best wishes, LDMF.

Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
Respectful Interfaces.

---- Elizabeth shared: -----

> Linda and all,
> 
> Privacy of physical and mental health records should not be controversial but a human right.  No one would want government or other any unauthorized entity or person having access to sensitive information.
> 
> ICT resources, whether funding from government, community, or private sector, would apply in all health areas such as telemedicine, education, general knowledge, etc.
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> Dr. Elizabeth Carll
> International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies;
> UN NGO Committee on Mental Health;
> Communications Coordination Committee for the UN
> Health and ICT Working Group
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of Respectful_Interfaces at att.net
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:27 PM
> To: wsishealth-and-ict at yahoogroups.com; plenary at wsis-cs.org; Zielinski, Christopher; Hiroshi Kawamura; bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de; WSIS-CT; WSIS CT-Drafting
> Cc: Sylvia Caras; Pwd at wsis-cs.org; ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com; adfonatt at att.net; disabiilityparty at yahoogroups.com; invisible_NO-MORE at yahoogroups.com; portal-PWPI at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [wsishealth-and-ict] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [Pwd] missing the larger picture-almost final version 4.3 of WSIS CS statement
> 
> 
> Dear Elizabeth:
> 
> Thank you for furthering the discussion on several issues relating to 'ultimate beneficiaries' (figuratively construed) of Information and Communication Technologies [ICTs] as addressed in these contexts.  A few questions, below.
> 
> Elizabeth shares:
>> Dear Linda and all,
> 
> [ here marked A]  > As stated in our paragraphs what is meant is access to scientific information and knowledge by consumers and health professionals.   [underline added]. 
> 
> LDMF note: This then as described would and will be "to the max" ICT-4-LL,  a policy to which most agree though  resources for actually so implementing are very much of concern..  . 
> 
> [ here marked as B]   > I was not referring to individual physical and mental health records, which is addressed in the privacy paragraph we submitted for the health section.  
> 
> LDMF note:  This seems very controversial.
> 
> 
> [here marked as C]  > The access would be made possible via ICT which would need to be supported by the allocation of government and other community resources..
> 
> LDMF note:  Does this apply to A. or to B. or both? 
> 
> Thanking you most appreciatively,  Dr. Linda. D. Misek-Falkoff.
> Respectful Interfaces.
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20051221/7151368d/attachment.htm