The democratization of blood testing


* * *


raven said...

I suspect the medical industry will fight to keep it's monopolies intact- after all, they have spent millions creating them.

jaed said...

Not just the industry. Quite a bit of government now is devoted to the proposition that government agencies should (directly or indirectly) control the amount of medical care permitted. Doing that effectively depends upon the control of medical information.

Deitchman's questions, however, strike me as disconnected. Why would anyone expect insurance to pay for blood tests? Why would anyone put up with a demand that the blood test company violate their privacy by sending their results to a third party? Why would anyone be interested in having a blood test company phoning them and demanding to "address" the results?

His third question foregrounds an interesting disconnection by means of the phrase "their doctors", meaning the patient's own doctor. It is increasingly unusual for someone to have a doctor, meaning a professional they regularly consult about medical diagnosis and treatment and with whom they have an ongoing relationship in which the doctor is answerable to the patient. It is far more likely for people to have, not a doctor of their own, but an HMO or organization of some kind to which their medical care has been assigned. When they "go to the doctor", they see a corporate employee who is tasked with imposing tests and treatments according to the corporate guidelines, and with keeping specialist visits to the minimum. Such a doctor is answerable to his or her employer, not the patient. (Not incidentally, all that doctor's records about you are almost certainly stored in a federal government database with your identifying information.)

So "Will patients want their doctors to know their test results?" is an interesting question. With the Model I relationship with a doctor, of course you'd inform your doctor about any relevant medical fact. With the Model II relationship, disclosing such information might lead to loss of privacy, pressure to take unnecessary drugs, and the presence of a scarlet-letter diagnosis on your charts of the sort that might limit your options and someday limit your life, if people with that diagnosis are declared ineligible for certain treatments.

William said...

I like this! There is absolutely NO reason to restrict this tech other than control of the populace in a most unconstitutional way.
Of course, that hasn't stopped them yet......

William sends

Texan99 said...

The "doctor as vet" model. If you're not paying the bills, you're not the customer.

Ymar Sakar said...

Do livestock really need to be able to take their own temperature though?

Do we let dogs and pigs do that before eating them (China perhaps)?