Identity cards may exclude vulnerable groups from health care, says BMA
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Groups such as failed asylum seekers, frail elderly people, and people with serious mental illness may be excluded from access to health care if the government抯 proposals for identity cards with information about the bearer抯 right to public services, including the NHS, are introduced in the United Kingdom, the BMA has warned.
The BMA抯 statement was a response to a report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee published last week that gave broad backing to the government抯 plans to introduce identity cards, claiming they could make an important contribution to the fight against crime and terrorism by disrupting the use of multiple identities, identity fraud, and related crimes such as money laundering.
The committee抯 report is the result of a nine month inquiry into all features of identity cards, including the practical aspects of the government抯 proposals and its draft bill.
Although the report concluded that the scheme should go ahead, it did raise a number of concerns, saying that many key issues were poorly thought out and that there was a lack of clarity over the scheme抯 scope and practical operation. It is of the utmost importance that the government ensures before the scheme is implemented that the scheme imposes no new disadvantages on vulnerable groups, the report added.
The latest response from the BMA restated that the association was not opposed to an identity card system and follows a recent statement from the association asking the government to clarify a number of practical and ethical issues relating to identity cards and access to health care.
The BMA asked the government to explain the terms 揺mergency?and 搃mmediately necessary?care in the context of identity cards and people who are not eligible for free health care. In the statement Dr Michael Wilks, chairman of the BMA抯 ethics committee, said, 揑t is essential that the government puts systems in place that ensure that does not happen. The BMA would like to see some flexibility so that doctors can treat vulnerable patients who may not be eligible for free treatment and do not fall into the criteria for 慽mmediate necessary?care.?
The BMA also pointed out that it may be costlier in the long run to treat, for example, a patient with periodic diabetic comas than to provide maintenance doses of insulin. It also raised issues such as patients?confidentiality and data security. The BMA wanted assurance from the government on how these will be protected.(London Debashis Singh)
The BMA抯 statement was a response to a report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee published last week that gave broad backing to the government抯 plans to introduce identity cards, claiming they could make an important contribution to the fight against crime and terrorism by disrupting the use of multiple identities, identity fraud, and related crimes such as money laundering.
The committee抯 report is the result of a nine month inquiry into all features of identity cards, including the practical aspects of the government抯 proposals and its draft bill.
Although the report concluded that the scheme should go ahead, it did raise a number of concerns, saying that many key issues were poorly thought out and that there was a lack of clarity over the scheme抯 scope and practical operation. It is of the utmost importance that the government ensures before the scheme is implemented that the scheme imposes no new disadvantages on vulnerable groups, the report added.
The latest response from the BMA restated that the association was not opposed to an identity card system and follows a recent statement from the association asking the government to clarify a number of practical and ethical issues relating to identity cards and access to health care.
The BMA asked the government to explain the terms 揺mergency?and 搃mmediately necessary?care in the context of identity cards and people who are not eligible for free health care. In the statement Dr Michael Wilks, chairman of the BMA抯 ethics committee, said, 揑t is essential that the government puts systems in place that ensure that does not happen. The BMA would like to see some flexibility so that doctors can treat vulnerable patients who may not be eligible for free treatment and do not fall into the criteria for 慽mmediate necessary?care.?
The BMA also pointed out that it may be costlier in the long run to treat, for example, a patient with periodic diabetic comas than to provide maintenance doses of insulin. It also raised issues such as patients?confidentiality and data security. The BMA wanted assurance from the government on how these will be protected.(London Debashis Singh)