Honestly, the patients should have been asked first.
Even if it's still encrypted, this is a really scummy thing to do without first checking with the actual people first.
Isn't there a thing called doctor-patient confidentiality?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50249281]Isn't there a thing called doctor-patient confidentiality?[/QUOTE]
This is the UK, not the US.
--
For people rating this dumb, read up. The UK doesn't have the same doctor-patient confidentiality as the US.
[QUOTE=Breny;50249273]Honestly, the patients should have been asked first.
Even if it's still encrypted, this is a really scummy thing to do without first checking with the actual people first.[/QUOTE]
As long as there's no identifying information I don't see a problem
[QUOTE=Breny;50249273]Honestly, the patients should have been asked first.
Even if it's still encrypted, this is a really scummy thing to do without first checking with the actual people first.[/QUOTE]
In a statement, it said: "Our arrangement with DeepMind is the standard NHS information-sharing agreement set out by NHS England's corporate information governance department, and is the same as the other 1,500 agreements with third-party organisations that process NHS patient data.
"As with all information sharing agreements with non-NHS organisations, patients can opt out of any data-sharing system by contacting the trust's data protection officer."
apparently they're not the only one so this really isn't a big deal
The article contradicts itself. It both says the data includes full names and that it's not identifiable.
(I assume the latter is the case, since the former would be completely insane.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.