Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Most Doctors Don't Think Patients Need Full Access To Med Records

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the for-our-eyes-only dept.

Medicine 659

Lucas123 writes "While electronic medical records (EMR) may contain your health information, most physicians think you should only be able to add information to them, not get access to all of the contents. A survey released this week of 3,700 physicians in eight countries found that only 31% of them believe patients should have full access to their medical record; 65% believe patients should have only limited access. Four percent said patients should have no access at all. The findings were consistent among doctors surveyed in eight countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Singapore, Spain and the United States."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Access your doctor's server using a HOST file (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114659)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

Disproof of all apk's statements:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040729&cid=40949719 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040697&cid=40949343 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040597&cid=40948659 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40947927 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040425&cid=40946755 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40942439 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3024445&cid=40942207 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40942031 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038601&cid=40942085 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040803&cid=40950045 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040867&cid=40950563 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40950839 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041035&cid=40951899 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40952169 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041091&cid=40952383 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40952991 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954201 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956625 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897177 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40894889 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40886171 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40959497 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042547&cid=40960279 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042669&cid=40962027 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965091 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965087 [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967049 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972117 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972271 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40972313 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045349&cid=40973979 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046181&cid=40978835 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046211&cid=40979293 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3050711&cid=41002319 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3118863&cid=41341925 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3131751&cid=41397971 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41429005 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146511&cid=41469199 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146549&cid=41469495 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509255 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3164403&cid=41555261 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832417 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41846971 [slashdot.org]
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861263 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41866351 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228683&cid=41866627 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228991&cid=41866737 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868513 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868567 [slashdot.org]
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869275f [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229765&cid=41872927 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3472971&cid=42939773 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3483339&cid=42972349 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981835 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42988415 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3500483&cid=43026797 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028205 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033535 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3504883&cid=43040365 [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044767 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507727&cid=43048175 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507873&cid=43049019 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051385 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3509683&cid=43054221 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3510265&cid=43056879 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063711 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43066627 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3513659&cid=43066843 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521721&cid=43094323 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521669&cid=43094855 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521797&cid=43096277 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43096733 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522219&cid=43097179 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522851&cid=43101761 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3523181&cid=43103421 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3526293&cid=43109809 [slashdot.org]

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

That's the kind of martial arts I practice.

Re:Access your doctor's server using a HOST file (1)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | about a year ago | (#43114677)

I hope you get herpes, chlamydia, genital warts and crabs, and then they refuse to give you your medical records afterwards.

Conspiracy! (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43114667)

What could possibly be in my medical records that they don't want me to know about?

Re:Conspiracy! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114761)


For example:

"Patient responds well to placebos"

"Patient is a looney hypochondriac, but has lots of money. Recommend all possible expensive tests."

"Patient is an addict, faking symptoms in order to get painkillers."


Re:Conspiracy! (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43114913)


"I'm not going to do test X because the lab I own doesn't sell that service, but I'll send him for an extra MRI because I've got a boat payment to make".

Re:Conspiracy! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43115013)

...because I've got a boat payment to make.

Car Talk fan? :-)

Re:Conspiracy! (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#43115105)

...because I've got a boat payment to make.

Car Talk fan? :-)

Only if you make brownies for your doctor's office.

Re:Conspiracy! (2)

mikael_j (106439) | about a year ago | (#43114999)

"Patient is an addict, faking symptoms in order to get painkillers."

This one actually happened to an old friend of mine. He had in the past had issues with substance abuse and it had made its way into his medical records. Fast forward a couple of years and shows up at the ER with a pretty nasty injury after chopping wood and they outright refuse to give him any painkillers except ibuprofen...

Took 24+ hours before he and several others were able to convince the doctors that he needed real pain relief.

Re:Conspiracy! (4, Interesting)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#43115125)

"Patient is an addict, faking symptoms in order to get painkillers."

This one actually happened to an old friend of mine. He had in the past had issues with substance abuse and it had made its way into his medical records. Fast forward a couple of years and shows up at the ER with a pretty nasty injury after chopping wood and they outright refuse to give him any painkillers except ibuprofen...

Took 24+ hours before he and several others were able to convince the doctors that he needed real pain relief.

A number of states now have databases of patients that doctors label as such for other doctors and pharmacies to watch out for.

Unfortunately, doctors are generally woefully unequipped to treat pain, particularly long-term pain. Plenty of addicts are made by the medical profession, something they don't like to admit.

Re:Conspiracy! (5, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43115045)

I worked in the medical industry, handling medical data. This is exactly what they don't want you to see.

Patient records are riddled with notes intended only for internal use. To a doctor, it's nothing special that you suffered explosive diarrhea in the middle of the hospital elevator - that happens once a week, and it could be medically important. To a patient, that's a terribly embarrassing episode that shouldn't be in records, and even considering storing such a thing is grounds for a lawsuit. That lawsuit would be argued in front of people outside a hospital setting, who would be biased in favor of the patient. In front of a hospital ethics board, tthe incident is just another bad day for the janitor.

To use the traditional car analogy, hospitals are much like body shops. You really don't need to know every point that was inspected, every noise source that was considered, or the internal notes from the mechanic about how you question every repair so he should make sure to only finish work on days the manager's available. Most of the information is obvious to someone knowledgable, useless to someone who knows nothing, and ammunition for someone who knows just enough to be dangerous.

On the other hand, what does the patient need to see? Doctors know that old records are unreliable, so history beyond a few years old doesn't really matter if it's slightly inaccurate. Current treatment is usually handled by a single primary doctor, who knows what makes sense for a particular patient, so inaccuracies there don't matter either.

Sure, it's information about the patient, but giving out all the details just causes more trouble than good.

Re:Conspiracy! (4, Informative)

v1 (525388) | about a year ago | (#43115115)

"Patient responds well to placebos"
"Patient is a looney hypochondriac, but has lots of money. Recommend all possible expensive tests."
"Patient is an addict, faking symptoms in order to get painkillers."

My knee-jerk reaction to this is of course "there's NO good reason to withhold my medical information from me!", which was only made worse by the surprising statistics of doctors that wanted to keep it hidden from my view. But you raise some very good points.

Perhaps what's needed here is a two-section medical record. Things that should be shared with the patient, (which should be the default behavior) and things that should NOT be shared with them, for their own benefit. The patient should not be able to determine if the "not to share" section contains information or not.

But as for the 2nd of your examples, yes a hidden feature is abusable. But this is your DOCTOR we're talking about. They are in a position of trust. If you don't trust your doctor, you need to find a new one. If you're a doctor and you've proven yourself untrustworthy, you need to be delicensed. It should be safe to assume you can trust your doctor. Given that, they should be allowed to selectively hide information from you for your benefit.

Like the old saying goes, there are two people in life you should never lie to: your doctor, and your lawyer. Because it's their exclusive job to represent and protect your best interest. And you need to be able to completely trust them both, because your health and your freedom are on the line, and they're the ones you're relying on to protect that.

Re:Conspiracy! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114773)

Well... what they did :-)

I guess doctors make wrong or let's say suboptimal decisions all the time, it's just that rarely people get so bad or die because of it so you actually get into malpraxis discussions. They want no patient oversight of what they are doing because a 5 minutes google search might convince you they are not doing a stellar job after all.

In Romania we have a law, that they "forget" to change every year, stating that the dead guy (and only him) must personally ask in writing for the medical records. In case someone dies from malpraxis no-one has access to that anymore so basically you can't argue malpraxis for people who died (therefore we have a statistically excellent medical system).

So yes, I'd go with conspiracy.

5 min on google 10 years medical training (2, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#43114945)

I guess doctors make wrong or let's say suboptimal decisions all the time, it's just that rarely people get so bad or die because of it so you actually get into malpraxis discussions.

Doctors do make mistakes just like any human. The human body is a complicated thing and doctors are nearly always working with incomplete information. Mistakes are unfortunate but also inevitable. The most you can and should ask for is that the doctor treated you with the appropriate standard of care [wikipedia.org].

They want no patient oversight of what they are doing because a 5 minutes google search might convince you they are not doing a stellar job after all.

It is terrifying that some people think that 5 minutes on google somehow will make them more informed than 10 years of medical training plus years of actual medical practice. Self diagnosis via google is a HUGE problem because disease processes are complicated and there are a lot of subtle distinctions the lay-person will not know anything about. Yes, sometimes the doctor might miss something but the vast majority of the time you will observe the doctor having a better batting average on the diagnosis than the patient.

Re:5 min on google 10 years medical training (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43115127)

less and less true, because a lot of the ambiguity is a consequence of it being to expensive to run a test that would exclude/confirm option A vs B or C.

I exect that within 10 years, we'll all have a handheld device that does a lot of those tests that used to be to expensive (see the http://www.qualcommtricorderxprize.org/)

Re:Conspiracy! (2, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | about a year ago | (#43115033)

Ayep. I can't find the link right now but there was a news article a while ago about a bunch of doctors complaining about people researching their own symptoms online.

Admittedly, it's bad when some looney googles a list of every single illness that initially presents with "headache, fever, sore throat" and insists they have meningitis or chlorine poisoning when they obviously just have a cold. There's also the flip side, though, that if a doctor isn't very good, they're going to be easy to catch out with some basic cross checking of their diagnosis. A lot of doctors seem to have this idea that just because they studied medical science instead of some other kind of science, that they're beyond question and somehow better than non-medical specialists. They hate getting caught out.

Re:Conspiracy! (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43115089)

There's also the flip side, though, that if a doctor isn't very good, they're going to be easy to catch out with some basic cross checking of their diagnosis.

That's why hospitals (and other medical groups) do reviews, to find those bad doctors by the several screwed-up cases in a random sample. The patient doesn't need to be the one doing their own research, regardless of what misguided bit of awareness they think they'll get.

Re:Conspiracy! (1)

helobugz (2849599) | about a year ago | (#43114779)

ever been to a mental health "professional" (for ANY reason)? Go ahead and get upset that you won't be getting a copy of what they're writing about you in your file, which will inevitably be stored on insecure computer storage medium, and watch how much they subsequently write down... Conspiracy, indeed!

Re:Conspiracy! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114835)

Agreed. Whatever their reasoning is, you can bet that it isn't for your benefit.

Doctors are human beings just like the rest of us, and driven by self-interest just like the rest of us. I've always found it strage that people are so willing to put their undivided trust in doctors -- when those doctors are ultimately driven by self-interest and theferore should be regarded as no more or less trustworthy than any other human being.

In fact, I've noticed that doctors are every bit as susceptible to "material drive" as those who are normally stereotyped as such -- lawyers, stock traders, corporate ladder-climbers. The fact that one is willing to spend $100,000 on an automobile and $1 million on a house really paints the picture. There's nothing wrong or immoral about that, but it certainly does stand in stark contrast to the common perspective that doctors are driven by altruism and deserve automatic trust.

Re:Conspiracy! (4, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year ago | (#43114865)

What could possibly be in my medical records that they don't want me to know about?

20 years ago my 35 year old friend died from stomach cancer. 8 years prior a radioligist failed to do his/her job correctly by not noticing a tiny white dot, so for 8 years the cancer grew until any swallowed food was blocked from continuing on into his body. Coincidentally, my friend's wife happened to work in the records room of his HMO (it's name rhymes with 'gyp'), and snuck his medical records out. The widow received a large wrongful death settlement only because of her having physical possession of his records, else no one would have known the true cause of his provider's negligence.

That's one reason why you would want full access to your own records.

Re:Conspiracy! (2)

Tsingi (870990) | about a year ago | (#43114901)

It's a God complex thing. Doctors don't like to be questioned. If you don't have the info, you can't question them.

Re:Conspiracy! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43115117)

A lot. I am a doctor, and I dislike patients accessing medical records. Remember that medicine is as much political as it is science. In the record, we need to remove the politics, but when stated to the patient, we need to keep it political. So, your doctor should be telling you information in a way that is best for you to swallow. It sounds paternal, be we all do this in daily life. Instead of "your hair looks terrible," you might say "I liked your old style better," even though the current style truly is terrible. For example, I had a patient who had a BMI of 50, and none of it was muscle, so in the chart I wrote "morbid obesity" as a diagnosis. He got the records, and on the next visit, I had to explain to him the term, and how it is not meant to be an insult, just a medical term. We never got to address why he was there to begin with, and he still left mad. So now my job is not just to treat people, but now I have the extra duty to explain what I wrote. No thanks. This is frequent to people who get their records. I am happy to discuss them, but they need a separate visit to discuss the records. In 15 years, I have rarely made many accurate changes, but have had multiple requests to make politcal ones.

Other examples are plentiful. When we consider some symptoms, we frequently consider cancer, but not without further testing. I like to write in the chart, "malignancy is in the differential," because it is, well, a medical record used to improve medical care and prompt me when I review it in the future. I write this even if the probability is 5% in my mind without further testing. Do I necessarily tell the patient of a possible, but improbable, condition? I do not. Paternalistic? Possibly, but I call it political, and it saves a lot of time and grief when no time or grief should be spent 95% of the time. I know it is easy to see doctors as evil. I certainly am. But give you doctor the benefit of the doubt. I certainly see the benefit of patient review of records, and almost all physician I know agree as well. It is just that the harms from patient review, in almost all of our experiences, overwhelm the good. Politics should be for the person, facts for the chart, and that is exactly why the doctor exists. Not just to write things down or order tests, but to interpret them for the individual patient.

Not surprising, follow the money... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114681)

Physicians are scared of malpractise suits.

And also, of patients getting to know what they really think of them...

Maybe, there should be two sets of data... the doctor's and the patients... The doctor's remarks can go into their dataset.

So (1)

mybeat (1516477) | about a year ago | (#43114689)

Of course they want to hide the medical records, so they can hide their malpractice better. Don't know about the rest of the world, but in a 3rd world country where I live, doctors mess up on a regular basis. My grandpa got diagnosed with sleep disorder which he didn't even have, so the prescribed some pills whose side effect had something to do with the ability to walk. So he almost did.

Re:So (1)

mybeat (1516477) | about a year ago | (#43114745)

...So when he was on that medication he literally couldn't walk more than 2 meters or whatever that is in feet.

Re:So (1)

Rosyna (80334) | about a year ago | (#43114805)

There are medications that can do that. Namely, SSRIs. So can a severe vitamin B12 deficiency. Mixing SSRIs with a severe vitamin B12 deficiency you better believe it! Namely the neurological side-effects can cause severe tremors and other loss of motor control leading to the inability to walk, feed yourself, or anything else that requires fine motor control.

Gah, it sucked ass.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114845)

...So when he was on that medication he literally couldn't walk more than 2 meters or whatever that is in feet.

I suspect he meant "died."

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114765)

Yes, it is a good thing he did not take the medication. We cannot have him walking about, now can we?

But no mention of why (5, Insightful)

kdataman (1687444) | about a year ago | (#43114691)

I was surprised that in the article and in the linked survey article there was no mention of WHY a doc would want to restrict information.

Re:But no mention of why. (3, Funny)

helobugz (2849599) | about a year ago | (#43114795)

Because you don't need it; now stop acting like a 3 year old with all this 'why' nonsense!

Re:But no mention of why (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43114807)

...no mention of WHY a doc would want to restrict information.

I doubt it is anything malicious. Doctors who feel that way probably view patients are raw material for their studies and the results of those studies as the property of the doctor. Those doctors need to be educated on the fact they are selling services to a customer and the customer owns the results of those services.

Re:But no mention of why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114907)

Wow, you're very "socialized" aren't you? Or maybe you're just gullible.

Re:But no mention of why (1)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | about a year ago | (#43115029)

There are things that a doctor may think in the background and not necessarily discuss with the patient while they are trying to figure out what's going on (Things like noncompliant patients, narcotic abusers, the fact that people will downright lie (due to embarrassment or nonacceptance of their condition) to their doc). As a practitioner, one still has to have a functional relationship with someone. That's not possible if one person in the relationship has access to every little thought the other person has about them. Think about it, do you tell you friend everything you've ever thought about them, negative or otherwise? Of course not, why not? Well...now you know why doctors wouldn't want patients to have access to everything written about them from the Doctors point of view.

File a US disability claim (1, Insightful)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a year ago | (#43114695)

File a US disability claim, and find out how much fun it is to get all those records, and then get your doctor to contradict the governments doctors in court.

I develop an EHR (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114697)

We had to take out a feature that let patients update their medical history online (which is a great feature because then the patient isn't be forced to memorydump in the clinic, there's a reason they tell you to write all this down and bring it a notebook when you see the doctor) because they were trying to removing items from the medical history in order to get claims paid that were rejecting for pre-existing conditions.

Now that obamacare is putting an end to the pre-existing condition thing, we may put it back, we'll see if the docs want it though. I believe the 65 percent is right though. On the other extreme, my boss believes that the patient should own their own medical record as a file they carry with them everywhere on a thumbdrive, I see that as a recipe for lost records and forgotten passwords. The alternative to having it on your person being Microsoft HealthVault still doesn't exactly make me tremble with joy.

Re:I develop an EHR (5, Insightful)

toebob (1996944) | about a year ago | (#43114743)

The easy way around this is to treat a medical records system like an accounting system. You can't delete any record you can only add corrections. Anyone reading the record would be able to see the "erroneous" entries as well as the justification for correcting them.

doctors are overpaid (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114721)

The median *starting* salary for the lowest paid doctors [wsj.com] is $132,500 (pediatrician). Since the linked article is the WSJ, the obvious conclusion they come to is that they should be paid *more*. I want people working in this profession because they want to be doctors, not because they want to be rich. Our healthcare costs are completely out of control, and doctor's salaries are one the main reasons. Pharmaceutical prices are the other. Inefficient private insurance is the third.

When the healthcare industry cleans it's own house and stops raping the public then maybe I'll start listening to what they have to say. Until then, I assume anything that comes out of their mouths is nothing but more posturing by narcissistic greedy assholes.

Re:doctors are overpaid (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114787)

Are you kidding? To become that pediatrician that doctor went to 4 years of undergraduate college, then 4 years of medical school (which has an average cost of >100,000), then completed 3 years of residency (making around 45k/yr). So now they are in their mid 30's, have a mortgage payment due every month, and all so they can work 120 hours a week so they can see enough patients to keep the doors to the practice open and pay their insurance company the ludicrous amount needed for malpractice protection from the sea of parasitic attorneys looking for a quick settlement.

Get real, the waste in the healthcare sector is not in doctor's earnings. If anything, they deserve more for all the crap they have to deal with day in and day out.

Re:doctors are overpaid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114919)

There's this meme going around that anyone making more than the median salary (or, sometimes, anyone making more than minimum wage) is overpaid.

The best part about racing to the bottom is the sickening crunch when you get there.

Re:doctors are overpaid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114935)

So Daddy was never home :-( poor little soldier.

Re:doctors are overpaid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114947)

Don't be silly, doctors in the US are as rich as lawyers despite all the tuition and training unless they've just started work. They have massive houses and holiday homes, they regularly take luxury vacations, have 60-80 grand cars for their runabout, the kids have $40k SUVs as soon as they can drive, and the absolutely milk the system obtaining every last cent they can. They may have worked extremely hard getting to that point, but please to lie about poverty and lack on money, because by the time they hit 50 they can retire on better income that the average IT person takes in salary.

Re:doctors are overpaid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114987)

If they're that overworked, then perhaps the AMA should open up more slots for doctors. Then their pay will go down. Work in a call center or ever suffer from a doctor's greed and you'll agree that doctors are WAY overpaid. Every time somebody says the sky is falling because socialized medicine will cause doctors' wages to go down, I just chuckle. Doctors need to get knocked down a notch or two.

Re:doctors are overpaid (1)

pnutjam (523990) | about a year ago | (#43115075)

Sounds like a pretty good return on investment to me. You should easily be able to service a $100k student loan debt on a low six figure salary. That residency pay may look low to Doc's, but it is a high starting wage for many professions. The time commitment may be high, but the money still rolls in for docs. It took me almost 8 years to break $40k with an AS.

Re:doctors are overpaid (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | about a year ago | (#43114915)

That's not the lowest salary for the lowest paid doctors. That's a list of specialists. General practicioners don't make much money at all compared to spedialists.

Obvious reason (4, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year ago | (#43114723)

You see a simple folder full of your medical history.

Your doctor sees it as a book of half-truths that can be twisted to create liability in a multitude of ways.

Remove the liability here, and these results would change.

Re:Obvious reason (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43114783)

Yes. Remove the liabllity.

Improve professional standards.

If doctors think they are vulnerable to malpractice suits then clearly they are aware that their house needs to be cleaned. You can either put up with the dirty house (tort reform), or you can actually clean house and improve medical standards.

Of course doctors don't want their misdeeds and incompetence on display for all to see.

Re:Obvious reason (4, Insightful)

haystor (102186) | about a year ago | (#43114861)

John Edwards and his kind are the reason. Many malpractice suits don't have any scientific basis, it's just a matter of running a sympathetic "victim" in front of a jury.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-011234-1949r/?page=all [washingtontimes.com]

Re:Obvious reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43115129)

John Edwards and his kind are the reason. Many malpractice suits don't have any scientific basis, it's just a matter of running a sympathetic "victim" in front of a jury.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-011234-1949r/?page=all [washingtontimes.com]

The key word is "many" not all. There are times when the doctor is clearly incompenent or worse and there needs to be some recourse. Sometimes with physician mistakes, incompetence or downright fraud, the patient is stuck with very very expensive treatments, drugs, maybe in house care, and other equipment. To completely eliminate liaibility will put those people in a horrible situation and most likely being supported by the taxpayer - IF that's availble.

Don't forget, we mostly hear about the abuses in the news - not the legitimate claims.

Re:Obvious reason (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#43114989)

That's a double edged sword. No, doctors don't want their misdeeds and incompetence on display for all to see. Despite the rigor or medical school, you still have a lot of people who become physicians who are barely qualified. They're not all geniuses - quite far from it, really.

OTOH, there's a lot about the human condition we just don't know. There is often no way to know exactly how a single person will react to a set of modifications - and statistics used for determining treatment efficacy are useless if you have to know the exact results of a treatment beforehand. And that's the standard people will hold a doctor to after the fact. 0.001% chance of fatal side effects? Sounds like a slam dunk, but that means one in twenty general physicians has just condemned a patient to death for that treatment (estimating about 5000 patients per doctor in the US, which is likely low for the career of an established physician). Was there a test which might have revealed 30% of those in the 0.001% that the doctor didn't order? Oh, that's a big lawsuit indeed - even worse if the patient didn't die but was severely damaged. Ignore the fact that to cover all of the possibilities, there may have needed to be 20 or more tests for all the options to be considered and there STILL would be a small percentage that would have a reaction not previously attributed to the treatment.

The problem is that doctors aren't omniscient, but we expect them to be. Some of them are downright careless, or just incompetent. Unfortunately, regulatory means never works except in the most egregious cases, and law suits foul the issues with very large paydays for the lawyers involved, making it less about what's right and more about meeting payroll (and the new boat payment).

EGO (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#43115091)

Doctors develop a big EGO; having a form of "code review" is going to bruise their egos.

The public expects too much of doctors and believes in them too much the doctors enjoy it despite the fears of liability.

Doctors are human biological mechanics. The machine may be more complex but dealing with both auto mechanics and doctors for me has been surprisingly similar with their cycle of educated guess -> routine maintenance procedures -> bill -> success/failure -> repeat.

Re:Obvious reason (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43114927)

What else do you think might change if we remove the ability to hold doctors accountable for incompetence?

Necessary for MD's to do their job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114729)

In order for doctors to do their job, think critically, and make honest impressions, assessments, and diagnoses, some parts of the medical record cannot be available to the patient. Think of mental status examinations, psychiatrists notes, or anything else where a behavioral observation is made. If patients had free access to this, it would be very difficult for the physician to document their true findings and impressions for fear of "offending" their patient. This would also jeopardize the relationship between the doctor and patient, which is necessary in any setting. This is no different from your HR file at your job, which you have limited access to.

Patients should have free access to objective information, lab values, imaging results, etc. but the notes written by the MD need to be protected.

Re:Necessary for MD's to do their job (5, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year ago | (#43114785)

The problem with limited access and the record keepers determining what is/isn't available is that it creates a strong pressure to hide things that should normally be available for less-than-honest reasons. Just look at all the information our government classifies and the types of things we've seen declassified years later. It's as likely as not that information is being hidden not to protect the patient, but rather to protect the doctor.

Re:Necessary for MD's to do their job (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43114811)

Your average HR lackey doesn't have people's lives in their hands.

Doctors do. So it's an entirely different kind of situation.

The idea that the process should be open to auditing shouldn't even be in question. Nor should the idea that doctors would be exposed to "code review" and examination by their peers.

Re:Necessary for MD's to do their job (2)

rioki (1328185) | about a year ago | (#43114859)

It has been proven over and over again that the mere visit to the doctor and the placebo effect has a significant effect on the reconvalescens. It basically hinges on the fact that you feel better, understood and taken care of. It totally destroys the effect if you learn that half of the medication or treatment you get is actually just feel good or placebo medication.

Re:Necessary for MD's to do their job (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43114973)

If patients had free access to this, it would be very difficult for the physician to document their true findings and impressions for fear of "offending" their patient. This would also jeopardize the relationship between the doctor and patient, which is necessary in any setting.

But witholding this data offends me more than anything that could be inside it, and damages the relationship between me and my doctor. If my doctor cannot be completely honest with me, how can I be completely honest with her?

News for nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114741)

How is this news for nerds? Taco is really starting to let this site go downhill.....

Re:News for nerds? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | about a year ago | (#43114789)

How is this news for nerds? Taco is really starting to let this site go downhill.....

I guess you haven't noticed what's happened to every other type of data over the last 20 years.

Information != Knowledge (5, Interesting)

Tx (96709) | about a year ago | (#43114753)

Information != Knowledge. It's already a big problem for doctors that patients come in demanding this or that treatment that they've read about on the internet, often with no real understanding of whether it's appropriate for them, or whether it's actually an effective treatment at all. I would imaging this is what is behind the doctors attitude in this study; full access to medical records will probably only increase that trend, with people trying to interpret their own records, and saying why did I not get such and such a treatment that I found on Google. That's not to say I agree with the doctors stance, but I can see where they're coming from.

Re:Information != Knowledge (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43114985)

Internet? Try TV advertising. The US is one of the few countries that still permits direct-to-consumer maketing of perscription drugs.

Re:Information != Knowledge (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#43115017)

If you ask doctors if patients NEED access, they should say no. If you ask doctors if patients have a right to access their records you'll get a different answer.

Going forward, some IBM Watson + website will also be providing interpretations... if they can get around the legal and political issues it will eventually out perform real doctors at diagnosis (who are not that good at it.)

Re:Information != Knowledge (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43115079)

Doctors don't know everything. They're trained to spot the most common problems, but it's really, really easy to stump a doctor. My GF has been having dizzy spells. She went to her GP, who sent her to an ENT, who sent her to an audiologist. None had any ideas.

So she spends some time on Google, and finds out that dizziness can be a side effect of gall bladder attacks(through over stimulation of the vagus nerve which causes a sudden drop of blood pressure). And she had seen the same GP a year earlier about her gall bladder problems. Why didn't the GP pick this up?

No, patients should be encouraged to do as much research as they can. You as a patient care more about your issue than anyone else. You know more about your body than anyone else. You should be a partner with your doctor in your own health care.

Not really surprising (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#43114767)

Some doctors will argue that by allowing the patient full access to the notes in the system, a doctor may be less frank about the mental condition of the patient or be reluctant to place information in the record which reflects poorly on the patient's demeanor, such as cooperativeness, a tenancy toward hypochondria, or just plan belligerence. In their defense, this honesty could lead to lawsuits (in the worst cases). Even in the instance where it's a simple difference of opinion, some patients are going to be fairly vocal about having the records changed or modified to suit their version of reality (correctly or not), resulting in more time spent by the doctor and administrative staff on uncompensated work.

Now, the best way to combat this is to allow comments on the records by patients. It will keep some of the sillyness out of records (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/The-Last-Page-UBI-in-the-Knife-and-Gun-Club.html) and will allow legitimate differences of opinions. A chart which is riddled with patient comments contradicting past providers will be just as valuable to a future provider as a note that the patient is difficult or uncooperative in treatment decisions.

Another item of concern is from the insurer's side. There will be people who attempt to expunge their records of items which decrease their insurability or increase their rates (and this will only get worse with mandatory insurance without cost caps or guaranteed rates). The way the questions were worded wasn't mentioned in the fine article, so if write/erase access was included in "full access," then continuity of care may be jeopardized by those seeking to minimize the impact of previous conditions on current health care rates - or simple embarrassment.

Re:Not really surprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114873)

Medical professionals should not be putting things in medical records that are not followed by basic facts. If someone is a hypochondriac then having a list of procedures with negative results should be adequate. If a patient is not cooperative that can be expressed in a professional fashion. If a doctor thinks a patient is faking something he may express some doubts in a professional way, but there is no need to put things in a person's permanent medical history that are simply opinion or the doctor's feelings.

aside from privacy and access (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114791)

This is data that you (possibly though an agent) have paid for, and in any reasonable world you own it and should be able to control it's disposition. In other words, they should have to ask for permission to use this data, not the other way around.

What I did about this (1, Funny)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a year ago | (#43114799)

Years ago (HS/college), my old doctor wouldn't let my have my records, after I decided to switch. He had asked for a prostate exam. So I waited till an hour before the appointment and slammed a pound of apple sauce.
He never spoke to me again after that.
  I felt his business was going downhill fast and I was right he went to prison a year later.

Fuck the medical profession (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114801)

...and fuck most doctors. They are suppose to be scientific. They are suppose to be compassionate. Instead you have a system where doctors get to play god, that is artificially restricted in terms of supply not because there aren't qualified candidates but because that allows elite doctors to charge what they like. The amount of unprofessional bullshit I have seen first hand is ridiculous. Everything from life threatening mistakes to nonchalance about life and death problems to blaming and preying on the patient. I've seen horrors in my own life. A pregnant lady being told she's just fat and breathing funny when she has maternal asthma. A doctor telling a patient to ignore rising blood sugar because they're not yet diabetic. Fucking idiots don't know how to fucking reduce a posterior shoulder dislocation - many repeatedly taking the wrong x-ray and telling the patient to go home and that a protruding bone is just swelling?! WHAT THE FUCK. Doctors who can't take blood for shit - 6 goes and more obsessed with telling me I must be gay if I'm asking for STD screening in the middle of a campaign about getting yourself checked out if you've any reason to. A woman sitting waiting in a (large) hospital for 8 hours while they send CT scans interstate after suffering a major blow to the head - we assumed they'd worked out it wasn't urgent....they just hadn't processed the fucking thing - she could have had a brain bleed you MOTHERFUCKERS. Then there are horror stories of doctors doing the unspeakable and only being brought to task many years later after many complaints - like the guy in Australia that was castrating women unnecessarily - he had the nerve to tell a patient as she was going under "and I'm going to take your clitoris too" - not to mention deciding not to wash hands pre-op because "doctors don't get germs" he had butchered dozens if not hundreds before he was finally brought to trial.

FUCK the lot of them. FUCK!!!!

Re:Fuck the medical profession (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114823)

DId I fucking mention being told to come off pills immediately that were causing seizures. Thank fuck I read up that doing so without slowly withdrawing makes patients suicidal. MOTHERFUCKERS.

Arrogance (2, Interesting)

notaspy (457709) | about a year ago | (#43114819)

I'm an attorney, so I know a little bit about arrogance, but we're patzers compared with doctors. Many truly have, if not God, then Emperor complexes, with their wisdom received without question by their subjects.

But that's probably not the real reason they don't want patients to have access to their complete medical records. It's all about avoiding medical malpractice claims (and annoying phone calls from patients asking questions).

So blame the lawyers.

Re:Arrogance (1)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | about a year ago | (#43114963)

I think you forget what it is that these people actually *DO* for a living. At some point during their surgical rotation every doctor has to cut into a human body in an attempt to fix it. Do you think for a second, that if they weren't 100% assured of their abilities that they would even attempt such a thing? Of course they have a god complex, it's a requirement of the job.

If most people fuck up, someones hamburger doesn't end up with lettuce on it, or someone has to wait an extra hour while someone else retypes up a memo, or perhaps, worse case scenario, someone loses some money. If a doctor fucks up, someone dies. So yes, they need to have that God complex going on, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to get up in the morning and do what they do.

Re:Arrogance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114975)

Doctors are actually trained to have that I'm always correct attitude.

Seen them (2)

ledow (319597) | about a year ago | (#43114829)

I have seen my entire medical records. Everything that a doctor has access to about myself. They were handed to me while I was at my doctors once and left alone in the room for several minutes while they arranged something. This was pre-computerisation, and they were my damn records, so I sat and read through them all.

Most of them were boring. Most of them related to childhood reports that were ultimately no-diagnosis because it was a cold or sniffles or whatever. One of them relating to my birth describes sub-conjuctival haemorrhaging (bleeding behind the eye) - today my birth would have resulted in compensation and investigations as they damaged my eyes pulling me out.

Apart from that, it was not interesting. Hell, they didn't even have my blood type, because they don't test for it unless they need to. And I haven't been to the doctors in YEARS except to register with a new one. I'm in the UK so there's no "cost" involved in treating me that I shouldn't know, as such.

That said, why would you not want me to see them. If I have a condition, can you really hide it from myself? Seems like nothing more than an arse-covering exercise and - if that's so - why do you have to cover your arse? Why should you care that a previous doctor might have to cover their arse?

Don't let me delete them or modify them, but I should at least be able to view them on demand and provide notes/comments as necessary if there's a dispute. How else can I be assured that the data you have is accurate? I can even query my entire criminal record and have it corrected if necessary (e.g. if someone falsely used my identity to commit a crime, which is quite a common thing), so why can't I do the same for medical records?

In the UK, the PNC has an access and appeals process because there are recorded instances of someone being refused a job only to discover that the things on their record WEREN'T THEIRS - computer error, deliberate fraud, etc. is quite common - enough that there's a procedure to identify you with fingerprints in that case and modify criminal records accordingly, and have an appeals process.

You're not telling me that medical records can't have exactly the same problem and solution, especially in countries where that person's insurance is going to be paying for that medical treatment?

Hell, in the UK, even the Data Protection Act can be brought in here - you're storing data concerning my personal details on a computer system - that's automatic right to query, appeal, correction, etc. before you even start whether that's your image on CCTV (yes, under the UK DPA you can ask for all 'personal data' about yourself, including CCTV of you, from anyone who records it and stores it - there's even an official FAQ about it and they have 40 days to respond, so long as you provide enough details to isolate the data you require), the details your employer holds, or what a certain website holds on you in terms of cookies and stored data on their systems.

It's entirely a malpractice cover, from what I can see. And if you're scared of someone potentially discovering malpractice, then maybe you should deal with your patients more carefully, not try to hide your tracks. And, honestly, that would be #1, top-of-my-list reason for records TO be opened, if that's the case.

Transphobic Doctors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114855)

The funny thing in the UK is if you are a transgender woman doctors seem to work under the idea that they can share you medical records with colleagues for a laugh like you're some sort of curiosity or gimmick for their amusement. UK doctors specialising in transgender healthcare also insist on having complete access to everything in your medical record even when one of the not infrequently abusive doctors has made a complete hash of diagnosis to the point where their comments in your medical record are prejudicial to your healthcare. Some people may think this is bad enough but the Gender Governance Group have stated in their minutes revealed by a Freedom of Information request that they actually believe human rights and equality law does not apply to them because they are doctors and transgenders are a medical issue. Indeed, this goes further. It is only under the duress of appearing in court than some doctors with prejudicial attitudes towards improving transgender healthcare options and funding show how behind the times and neglectful their medical judgement is. As far as some people are concerned transgenders are the lowest of the low and in often male dominated healthcare organisation one wonders if they don't just see us fucktoys or freaks. With an already huge power imbalance between us and a medical profession that operates like a closed shop you really have to begin questioning their motives when they believe patients should be forbidden from seeing their own medical records because secrecy of that level can only allow incompetent and abusive doctors to get away with more crimes of neglect or worse.

always about money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114867)

65% of "Doctors" got there just for the pay and have no real interest in the field (they are not scientist) and no interest in their patient well being. It's about time they bring down their pay to reasonable level because i can read radiography fine and i don't make millions each year for that.

In related story ... (3, Insightful)

mbaGeek (1219224) | about a year ago | (#43114887)

Brokers don't think you should have full access to your investment account (after all THEY are professionals and you are too stupid to understand what they are doing).

Mechanics don't think you should have full access to your car's maintenance record (see above).

file this under ruductio ad absurdum [wikipedia.org] - I can understand the physicians point of view. I simply disagree...

"sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

They can want to hide it (1)

Gonoff (88518) | about a year ago | (#43114893)

Whether the doctor wants you to be allowed to see them or not, it is not appropriate that they can hide them.

One place you listed was England, where I am. I wonder if doctors in the rest of the country (UK) feel the same. Whether they do or not, it does not matter. We have rules about this and the law generally allows people to see their medical records. This has ended those cryptic comments allegedly once found in patient notes -
TTFO - Told to f*** *ff
PP - Pumpkin Positive
BB - Big B****
GA - Great *ss
and even more obvious comments like
and so on

All that should be in patient notes are a record of events, examinations, results and so on. They do not need some juvinile comments about what the patient looks like or stupid personal remarks. I would be interested to hear someone try and justify not letting anyone see their records. I am sure that there will be valid reasons for individuals, mental health comes to mind, but they have to be the rare exception.

Re:They can want to hide it (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43115009)

The ER admissions codes are better known now. Before some doctor blabbed to the press and made them common knowledge:
DFO: Drunk, fell over.
DGP: Drunk, got punched.

Possible compromise? (5, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | about a year ago | (#43114895)

Split the record into a "data" section and a private "remarks" section. Patients get unrestricted access to their own data sections, but require a court order to see the remarks. Establish clear rules for what can go in the remarks section: everything else must go into data, and inappropriate use of the remarks section itself counts as a minor form of malpractice.

This should strike an appropriate balance. Patients can still get at the significant stuff, and they have recourse to get the rest if it's truly necessary. Doctors can continue to comment frankly about patients-from-Hell, without having to worry about being embarrassed unless they already have much bigger problems.

Thin-skinned patients (1)

RKThoadan (89437) | about a year ago | (#43114897)

Doctors and Nurses are sometimes brutally honest in their documentation. If you've been a difficult or non-compliant patient you can expect that it was documented. Some people get quite irate about that when they see it in their records, especially if insurance is refusing to cover something because they were non-compliant with treatment. Some people even get upset with the description of morbidly obese, even though for these purposes it's a strictly defined medical term.

I imagine most doctors could identify some patients that would benefit from full access to their records and some patients that they'd rather not even tell them their blood pressure because they'd insist that the nurse did it wrong because their BP is never that high.

What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114911)

I don't think doctors need full access to my symptoms. This will work out great.

I took a peek at a computer screen in a clinic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114943)

In 2008 I took a peek at an old amber computer screen in a clinic I was getting treated for bronchitis in. What did I see?

I saw text dated from 1981 which referred to me as "NASTY CHILD, IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTROL"

Put yourself in their shoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43114995)

Think about it this way. Most of us that regularly read /. deal with support issues.
How would you feel about your user base knowing exactly everything your thinking. I don't care if its a denotation of your theories in a weird ticket that you want your boss to be able to read, Or back end systems stuff that the user doesn't need to know to fix their problem.
We don't want our full work log available to users, and i can't blame the doctors for not wanting the same.

Psych patients (3, Interesting)

symes (835608) | about a year ago | (#43115015)

I think one reason why medics might have a problem sharing is that there are issues if there are suspected psychiatric issues. Imagine a situation that a patient is prone to aggression and the doc thinks this might be related to schizophrenia or something along those lines. In my experience, anyone dealing with patients like this really try hard to keep themselves distant from the patient, in case they turn up on their doorstep... and this does happen. So I would look closely at how the question was worded in this survey. I would imagine most medics can think of at least one person who they would prefer didn't see their notes and for very good reasons. So if the question was along the lines of "should all patients" have access then the answer must be no.

Dead men don't tell tales... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43115083)

Well it is OK for doctors, they can bury their mistakes, not being able to see medical records makes it so much easier for them.

That is NOT what the survey said (1)

Bazzargh (39195) | about a year ago | (#43115097)

"most physicians think you should only be able to add information to them, not get access to all of the contents. "

Nope. What it said was that most of them believed you should not be able to UPDATE your medical records. The first paragraph also says 'access', but look at the questions that were asked and the graph. It's about updates, not reading them.

http://newsroom.accenture.com/news/most-us-doctors-believe-patients-should-update-electronic-health-record-but-not-have-full-access-to-it-according-to-accenture-eight-country-survey.htm [accenture.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account