FDA Approves Use of Chip in Patients

Essentially - A tiny computer chip approved Wednesday for implantation in a patient's arm can speed vital information about a patient's medical history to doctors and hospitals. But critics warn that it could open new ways to imperil the confidentiality of medical records.

Does anyone else besides me find this very disconcerting? The article also states that this technology can be used by employers for employees working in sensitive areas (such as nuclear power plants) for tracking employee movement. I find this horrifying! There are many other ways that employee tracking can be done effectively.

I have to ask - what if our health insurance companies required the "chip" before they pay for our health care?

Or worse yet - what if hospitals require it before they give us health care?

Could this technology be implanted against our will? (Say if for some reason the U.S. Government requires soliders or prisoners to be implanted?)

What if our employers required the "chip" before they give us employment?

Where is this going?

It's bad enough that RFID is being used to track products (and in the process to track our buying and use habits of products). But where will it end? Will we be forced to have a chip implanted in order to travel? work? have health insurance? get credit? buy a house? drive a car?

I am so glad that I'm close to retiring - at least if it gets that bad I can duck out of most of it. I have to say that I feel so strongly about this that if the chip was required in order to receive medical care, I'd decline the medical care.

I'd rather die than be implanted and tracked.

Yeah - I know, I probably sound like one of those people who wears aluminum foil on my head and looks for the mark of the beast everywhere. But I'm not.

*** takes foil off head and hides foil inside ball cap***

I just find it all very Orwellian and spooky.

Rose

Very Orwellian don't ya think ? Make sure you have the shiny side against your scalp Rose !! This is a well known fact amongst bikers that is the only way you can block the RF.
P.S. The sky is falling !!!

Don't care - got my aluminum foil cap on! neener neener

Just thought that I'd raise some questions - it honestly does concern me though - that privacy can be so eroded by technology without laws to keep it in check.

I don't think we'll ever have to worry about the government requiring something like this for everyday citizens. The American people wouldn't stand for it, independent free-thinkers that we are. Soldiers...well, aren't they supposed to be "property" of the United States government anyway? And prisoners...well, they are being punished in prison, after all.

I guess I'm not too worried about it...though someone (individuals or private buisnesses) rampantly abusing that technology is a scary thought.

Well, Athan, this isn't one of those things that they'll come right out of the blue with, suddenly saying that everyone needs to have this done. Annoying things like this usually creep up slowly, with more and more people requiring it, until eventually everyone just assumes it's required... which at that point, it effectively would be.

I can see insurance companies starting to give out some sort of break on premiums for people who get these, then slowly moving it from being a sort of discount, to something all but required.

As cool and useful as RFID technology is in some respects, the privacy side of it is being desperately ignored in industry circles.

That's already happening with some 'black-box' type units that are placed in your auto to ensure you're being a law-abiding driver. It reeks.

Within ten years they'll be in every driver's license and license plate, and we'll have RFID readers at every intersection in the cities and along all major highways.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,65243,00.html
http://security-lab.com/product/rfid/

Just think, if your ex-husband has skipped out on a child support payment, you'll be able to call up a web page and see him as a little red blip on a map of the US.

When will these modern conveniences end?

Oh, by the way, your cell phone contains a GPS unit right now and will send it's location to the phone company at their request, even if you have it turned off!

Yes, but there's a big difference between putting a data recorder in a car and surgically implanting a foreign object into a person's body.

And Cross, why would insurance companies want people to have these things implanted? They are for us and the hospital's benifit, not theirs. Yeesh, they could care less about us. I mean, when has your insurance company ever wanted you to have surgery at THEIR expense, which is what you are suggesting?

Hehe, I know someone that suffers from a deadbeat dad. In this instance I would say put that microchip in him, and don't even think about using anesthesia!

I could see insurance companies benefiting because of the reduction of hospital error - whether the error reduction involves identification of medical procedure or identification of medications the individual is allergic to.

While this may sound like a good thing, there are other ways to accomplish it than subjecting an individual to injection of a foreign device where they have no control over it's removal.

This is also technology that has been recommended for elderly patients in nursing homes. It would warn nursing home personnel when if the patient tried to leave the facility in addition to serving as identification.

but then so would a hospital braclet with the chip embedded in the braclet rather than in the person.

Well, if you have medical data right on hand (or arm, or nose, or wherever ), doctors wouldn't have to waste possibly valuable time digging up your medical information, so therefore they could treat you faster and more efficiently. You can't say that the insurance companies wouldn't like this, as it would lower their payouts. And we all know how much they love to avoid paying out.

From another tack, I don't really feel like carrying my medical information around with me, in a form that can be read wirelessly, without my knowledge.

Though really, I don't hate the idea of such an implant. Heck, it'd be kinda cool to be able to wave my hand over a reader and that's it, my shopping's paid for. Tha'd be sweet. The problem is that it's insecure, and allows an AWFUL lot of potential abuse, that tends to outweigh the advantages. IMO.

But what if you are having a heart attack and fully within your 'golden' hour and there is an ASSet server crash ???

You know, I would so love it if everything we bought came with little embedded microchips, then you could just walk through a scanner gate or something that would instantly tally the cost AND charge it to a little microchip or somesuch that we carried around. No waiting in lines! Whee!

One of the somewhat scary issues with RFID chips is the fact that they're very tiny, and they (currently, by design) cannot be turned off. Even after you purchase an item marked with one of these little devils, anybody with a reader can access the data on the chip. Then you get annoying data mining antics going on. Theoretically, you could be individually tracked by your own clothes.

I am definitely against someone implanting chips in me. Seriously, how much do these things weigh?!? Every ounce counts.

I am strongly in favor of having a tracking chip implanted in my clone(s) though. I just know that little bugger will try to escape one day and I want to know exactly where my spare kidneys are at all times.

I am all for it.

This reminds me of a narrative song by one of my favorite bands, Thrall. I transcribed the song for your enjoyment. This "song" is titled, No Mark! No Milk!

(Phone ringing repeatedly...)

News Guy: This item just in on the local scene. A fatal shooting in the city today claimed the life of a woman, here is that report...

(Phone continues to ring and a baby begins crying over a quiet church hymnal...)

Reporter: Im at the Public Quick Mart on North Main Street. The shooting took place about thirty minutes ago. Im talking with the store owner who shot the victim. Sir, could you explain the incident please.

Store Owner: Its really simple. This woman came in and tried to purchase some food for her baby. When she came to the checkout she didnt have any mark on her childs hand or forehead.

Reporter: Well, did the lady have a mark or a tattoo?

Store Owner: Yeah, well, yeah she did but the child didnt. I told her the law required everyone had to have the mark. I mean why should the kid not get, should she get by? Everyone in my family had to have the mark, why not her? Well, anyway she got real mad and upset and she began screaming that she had to have milk for her baby and everything, crying you know. Saying something about not wanting her kid to bear any mark. Well, "the laws the law" I told her. So she started hittin me and then she grabbed the milk and pushed me back against counter and ran for the door. I reached under the counter for my pistol and yelled for her to stop, when she didnt stop, I shot. Im sorry, but the laws the law.

Reporter: Okay sir, thank you. Also with me is the Police Chief. Chief, what action will your department take in this tradegy?

Police Chief: Well, the man didnt do anything wrong. Actually, I wish more citizens were as civic minded, it sure would make my job a lot easier. The family's a little upset, but they'll get over it.

(fades)

I will worry when the FDA approves the use of dip in patients.

If I were you I would be more concerned if the FDA approved the use of patients on dip

All the government would have to do is say "It's to identify the REAL citizens as compared to the immigrants, to protect us against terrorism!" and people would be lining up for it. Terror is how this government is run these days.



Not really. If it's anything like the dog/cat variety, the chip is rather tiny. So much so that putting one in resembles an injection, from what I remember. (Maybe just shoving it under a tiny incision, I forget.)



Oh yeah! And we could have them on our hands, or maybe our foreheads, and everyone who had one would have everything, and those who didn't would be outcast, and then we'd all know that armageddon was at hand. (Revelation 14:9)

I am not for this idea at all.

First, insurance companies believe they have a "vested interest" in everyone's records - even those they (individual companies) are not currently insuring. So, by having access to any passersby's records, they can amass a huge medical database which can (and experience has alreeady shown WILL) be used to target specific medical-risk populations for targetted coverage price increases. Just imagine, someone two generations back in your ancestry had a mild/short hospitalization... you don't know the lab tests that were run, but they do - and suddenly you're turned down for/your life insurance policy premiums are increased without warning based on the fact of the lab test results showing some herediary disease you might possibly have inherited but currently show no symptoms of.

Second, as a retired military member, that "golden hour" on the battlefield won't be enhanced one way or another by these chips if proper procedures are followed. Most battlefield medicine is conducted without any serious reference to medical histories anyway due to the nature of war - penetrating wounds are penetrating wounds, traumatic amputations are just that.. Soldiers already carry dog tags that identify their allergies which might be relevant to medical treatment. "Chipping" soldiers will have no benefit to their battlefield medical treatment IMHO. Peacetime treatment may be another issue - but I don't like the intrusion/injection of foreign substances of any kind (otehr than the obvious and life-sustaining things like food and water) into my physical body.

Third, any and all information in databases is subject to misuse by people. Though well-intentioned, I am sure, this idea of adding to what the world knows about me is, while not frightening, something of concern with respect to maintaining anonimity. 100 years ago, people did not need to worry about remaining anonymous. Today, a quick search on the net and your personal identity can be "stolen"/assumed by someone else - well, if that is true, then records can be altered (consider the Sandra Bullock movie, The Net). IF medical records are to be carried on the chip, then it will need to be rewrtable - and that is the flaw in this system. I am no conspiracy theorist, but there is way too much opportunity for abuse here.

and that's my $L0.02.

Oh.

But.... if this is RFID tech, there is a concieveable way to create miniture blocking/draining devices that you could wear, slowly disrupting any chip you get near. No one has made one yet, that I know of, but if RFID tech starts getting widespread use, I'm sure someone will make one someday.

They are already working on it!

RSA shows RFID tag blocker

Published Thursday 26th February 2004 09:37 GMT
RSA RSA Security is building an RFID tag blocker which may allay privacy concerns over Radio-Frequency Identification technology.

The RSA Blocker Tag is an RFID tag which prevents readers from scanning and tracking people or goods after purchases have been made -without disrupting normal RFID operation.

Devised by RSA Laboratories, in conjunction with Ronald Rivest (the 'R' in RSA), the patent-pending RSA Blocker Tag is technically elegant. But will the technology find a market when it addresses - in its present form - only one aspect of the privacy concerns generated by RFID technology.

But what does Chip think ?

Bikers have known it for years !! Tinfoil under your helmet !!