<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>- As an aside lest Noahs e-flood overwhelm us,
I think it were perhaps well to condense the list of addressees at this point it
others agree (though we needn't ,and its for all to decide, because the
conversations can become too terse and misleading interpretations
result before time to work out what people are trying to say. That is up
to all here; meanwhile we are addressing basically the whole world, so I post
just to clarify that I was quoting your paragraph: </EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG><EM>>"As stated in our paragraphs what
is meant is <U>access</U> to scientific information and knowledge by consumers
and health professionals. I was not referring to individual physical and
mental health records, which is addressed in the privacy paragraph we submitted
for the health section. The <U>access</U> would be made possible via ICT
which would need to be supported by the allocation of government and other
community resources"</EM> [underlining here added for discussion].
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>and attempting to learn more about the concepts of
<EM>access</EM> therein. </FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Re your paragraph, I have endeavored to respond to
these important concepts as posed </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> step by
step (though just a first attempt, and appreciative of your own reply). I
respond that w</FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>e agree: the privacy or
relative privacy of records interests us all. From my own background
researching and computationally implementing medical record retrieval (EMR)
systems starting in the 1960's working with a medley of intake and output
assumptions and formats, with and for hospital and universities, though not my
present focus or expertise, my goodness not so claimed, I feel we can be content
that wide open unrestricted access to Health records is untenable. Well,
almost, because to read some commentators not unstriking in their
suggestions, possibly if nothing were private then nothing
would either be stigmatized. (And on the third hand, what is
private about HIPAA regulations even now - and who is shielded etc., and who
allowed to read records, etc., for example - the start-up list for Q and A
is a candidate set of extended dinner conversations at
least). .</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In sum on our subjects and 'back to the
future' .. of <U>access</U> matters via ICT... and with room for
reconsideration, as I have read your prior post it seemed to refer to
<U>access</U> for all as far as scientific information etc. But this
seemed not to refer to health records. I would as set forth above and
prior indeed think this quite controversial. The next sentence continues
right through on <U>access</U> matters. We do I think need to understand
what sorts of things people should have <U>access</U> to. Where allocated
resources should be spent.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But whatever our varying specific view, I cannot
imagine a more dedicated group of discussants than we have here. If
it takes a bit of work and storage to try to understand others' perspectives it
is worth it. My own perspective would include significant "patient" /
client / consumer <U>access</U> to health records (some providers choose to do
this even now) and also "right" and "means" to amend or correct them. We
have had our voices heard and would welcome others coming in with theirs too;
w</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>e may or may agree on these issues.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And to encourage mutual enlightenment, a
query: </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>to what do people here feel
there should be <U>access</U> to in e-Health areas? And what should one be only
able to read but not add one's own comments?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is not only of course in electronic
communications contexts that these topics have vibrancy, but now that
<U>access</U> is technically more feasible on global scales (and indeed there
are many existing e-Health records-sub networks in place for "professional"
access as we "speak)", then now or later we will have to focus on who gets
<U>access</U> and to <EM>what</EM> and <EM>why</EM> and <EM>where</EM> and
<EM>when</EM>, and <EM>how</EM> - to eye things from a journalistic canon
of considerations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hoping to converse with you on these topics in the
future but taking pause for other posts and suggestions, I set sail my very best
wishes, LDMF.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Respectful Interfaces.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>---- Elizabeth shared: -----</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> Linda and all,<BR>> <BR>> Privacy of
physical and mental health records should not be controversial but a human
right. No one would want government or other any unauthorized entity or
person having access to sensitive information.<BR>> <BR>> ICT resources,
whether funding from government, community, or private sector, would apply in
all health areas such as telemedicine, education, general knowledge,
etc.<BR>> <BR>> Elizabeth<BR>> <BR>> Dr. Elizabeth Carll<BR>>
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies;<BR>> UN NGO Committee on
Mental Health;<BR>> Communications Coordination Committee for the UN<BR>>
Health and ICT Working Group<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>
From: </FONT><A href="mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>
[mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of </FONT><A
href="mailto:Respectful_Interfaces@att.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Respectful_Interfaces@att.net</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:27 PM<BR>> To: </FONT><A
href="mailto:wsishealth-and-ict@yahoogroups.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>wsishealth-and-ict@yahoogroups.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>;
</FONT><A href="mailto:plenary@wsis-cs.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>plenary@wsis-cs.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>; Zielinski,
Christopher; Hiroshi Kawamura; </FONT><A
href="mailto:bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>; WSIS-CT;
WSIS CT-Drafting<BR>> Cc: Sylvia Caras; </FONT><A
href="mailto:Pwd@wsis-cs.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Pwd@wsis-cs.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>; </FONT><A
href="mailto:ldmisekfalkoff@gmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>ldmisekfalkoff@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>; </FONT><A
href="mailto:adfonatt@att.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>adfonatt@att.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>; </FONT><A
href="mailto:disabiilityparty@yahoogroups.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>disabiilityparty@yahoogroups.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>;
</FONT><A href="mailto:invisible_NO-MORE@yahoogroups.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>invisible_NO-MORE@yahoogroups.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>;
</FONT><A href="mailto:portal-PWPI@yahoogroups.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>portal-PWPI@yahoogroups.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
Subject: Re: [wsishealth-and-ict] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [Pwd] missing the
larger picture-almost final version 4.3 of WSIS CS statement<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Dear Elizabeth:<BR>> <BR>> Thank you for furthering the
discussion on several issues relating to 'ultimate beneficiaries' (figuratively
construed) of Information and Communication Technologies [ICTs] as addressed in
these contexts. A few questions, below.<BR>> <BR>> Elizabeth
shares:<BR>>> Dear Linda and all,<BR>> <BR>> [ here marked
A] > As stated in our paragraphs what is meant is access to scientific
information and knowledge by consumers and health professionals.
[underline added]. <BR>> <BR>> LDMF note: This then as described would and
will be "to the max" ICT-4-LL, a policy to which most agree though
resources for actually so implementing are very much of concern.. .
<BR>> <BR>> [ here marked as B] > I was not referring to
individual physical and mental health records, which is addressed in the privacy
paragraph we submitted for the health section. <BR>> <BR>> LDMF
note: This seems very controversial.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> [here
marked as C] > The access would be made possible via ICT which would
need to be supported by the allocation of government and other community
resources..<BR>> <BR>> LDMF note: Does this apply to A. or to B. or
both? <BR>> <BR>> Thanking you most appreciatively, Dr. Linda. D.
Misek-Falkoff.<BR>> Respectful Interfaces.<BR>>
<BR>></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>