Today the FDA Approved the use of implantable chips that will allow doctors to scan a patient's arm and get access to detailed medical records.



Questions for debate:
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this technology? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

2. Is this a good use of technology or a danger to privacy?

OK--the reason we can't just do this on a simple plastic card is....? One thing I'm never in favor of (and I work in IT) is the use of technology to solve problems that don't really exist. What is the driving need to insert this into our body? That's a couple generations of technology removed from where we're at now. I have an idea...lets start with standardizing that dang medical history form that every doctor on earth uses...but won't accept anyone else's. What's the solution to that...a different implant for every doctor you see, or might see, or could possibly come into contact with? The have a word for this type of idea...that word is 'stupid'. Start with improving the process....THEN worry about how to carry around the information.

Sheesshhh...how come these people never come to me first? I could save them a lot of time and effort.

To specifically answer the questions:

1. There are no advantages, at least not clear cut ones. If you're incapable of carrying around a little plastic card, are you really prepared to decide whether or not to have someone insert something into your body? Homey says.....I don't think so.

2. Neither. Privacy is not the issue...improper use of technology is. Nothing wrong with electronifying these records and carrying that around with--it would not only improve efficiency, but would certainly save a least a few lives. But we're dealing with people who haven't met a form they couldn't customize for their use only--no way to electronify the process until its standardized. We'll worry about implanting this into bodies later....much, much, much later.

Why would the FDA bother to dignify what amounts to high-priced body-piercing? Millions implant various trinkets in their body-parts, and the FDA ... doesn't even want to hear about it... .

From the original link-reference:

ADS is actively subsidizing the use of the chip-technology. The industry of which they are a part has lobbied the FDA to give the chip the formal green-light, and a nice piece of free publicity.

The advantages lie mainly in the perception of a vertical venture-capital operation.

Why is this happening? It's part of the broader "RFID", Radio-Frequency IDentification technolgy. This is a major, government-sponsored, industry-embraced tracking/inventory system, which said players would like to see firmly integrated into society. This 'medical-ID' chip is just a spin-off, PR device ... oh, and there's lots of money in health care.

RFID Journal


It's a nifty, possibly even fascinating use of technology ... especially for those of us who are susceptible to this sort of thing. It potentially has some pretty surprising legs under it, beyond what George Orwell would be quick to point out.

RFID Privacy Happenings - MIT Media Lab

Danger? Any time the FDA is doing something for the public, without ever bothering to check with the public, we should have one hand our wallet and the other on our lawyer's business card.

But us techie-types already determined that RFID is a poor candidate for nefarious purposes. First, the chip does not broadcast, but must be accessed using an installed scanner. The chip has to be within inches of a scanner, for it's existence to be known. Second, the chip itself holds only a smidgeon of information. In the case of this medical ID chip, all it does is trigger access to the person's medical file - it does not hold medical information itself.

My assessment: this is a highly specialized system that is directly useful only for people who must maintain an extremely well-integrated relationship with their medical providers. Beyond that, it is in reality mainly a soft-core start-up scam, playing off government interest in RFID, and hoping to plug into easy health-care money.

They are using this technology for dogs now as a way to identify them if they are lost. I got one for my dog thinking that if he was stolen, this would be a positive way to prove he was mine.

I don't think I would want one in my body, however. I'm not sure of all the privacy issues, but I feel that there is so much free-floating information out there about indivdiuals, as the technology develops to assemble it, issues will emerge that we haven't envisioned.

There is an advantage to implantable chips for those who need to carry medical information on their person at all times. You've probably seen the life alert bracelets and necklaces diabetics and epileptics often wear. Most of these only allow for up to 12 words maximum. They are unattractive. Imagine for a moment you are a young woman, forced to choose between a potential health risk and wearing an ugly piece of jewelry that also serves as a constant reminder that she has a medical problem. Now imagine that there is an alternative, like the chip, which lies under the skin and has the ability to give access to far more information. I think the chip would be preferable.

I don't believe privacy would be an issue.

-Jessica