 |
 |
Well, that seems to have started something! Just a quick comment (I don't have much time at the moment to comment on all the matters raised). On the whole I'm with John Bibby (as below). Despite suggestions that it looks as though RadStats is becoming anti-statistical, I'd like to make it clear that I'm all in favour of good statistics, soundly obtained and clearly interpreted. The way the DoH have presented this, and the "opt-out" options have been put to the public, does not seem to be compatible with this! George Savva commented: Ted and list I don't think these are inconsistent. Paragraph 2 says data on your healthcare use outside of primary care could be used by researchers (eg as part of hospital episode statistics). The second opt out box says you don't want HSCIC to release any such identifiable information about you. It has nothing to do with your GP. Now that was paragraph 2 on the form that was delivered to me. What I was comparing it was option 2 on the opt-out form which I was given at my GP practice, which says: 2. I do not want information that identifies me to be used by other healthcare organisations such as Hospitals, Community Services, and research projects. (This will, in the future, prevent any of your Personal Confidential Data leaving the Health and Social Care Information Centre (SCIC). (Code XaaVL) [tick-box] and what I was picking up was the implication that "information that identifies me" (which could include information that my GP might want to send if referring me to hposital) could then not be used by Hospitals! More later, perhaps. Best wishes, Ted. On 30-Jan-2014 12:20:03 John Bibby wrote: > For me, I am all in favour of good data, and I don't mind being part of it > myself. I am fairly relaxed about anonymisation. I can't see why anyone > would be interested in me as an individual, except as a marketing 'target'. > > But I realise other people will feel differently, and may even feel that I > am being naive. Some social policies must allow opt-out, and this may be > one. If opt-out is allowed, it should be easy and transparent. It seems > like this one is not. That, for me, is the main item of concern, although > the wider debate is indeed interesting. > > I feel that Radical Statistics should stand up for good data and widespread > social obligations, but should oppose data commodification. Therein lies > the key tension, n'est-ce pas? > > JOHN BIBBY > [...] ------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]> Date: 30-Jan-2014 Time: 13:06:16 This message was sent by XFMail ------------------------------------------------- ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************