Re: Confidentiality Policies

[PCK11399@centum.utulsa.edu]

  From:	CENTUM::PCK11399     10-MAY-1996 13:34:08.02
  To:	SMTP%"love@tap.org"
  CC:	PCK11399
  Subj:	Re: Confidentiality Policies
  
  After reading many messages posted on this matter by Lewis, I have come to
  the understanding that he, like so many econonists (as in Law and Economics)
  refuse to give proper value to intangibles, like privacy.  These economists
  seem to believe there is nothing more valuable than the almighty dollar (or
  yen, or franc, etc.).  So what if the efficiency of medical care suffers 
  because of allowing privacy to individuals!  If so, I am willing to take
  the present technology (or even less, if necessary) if my privacy needs are
  met.  My intangible need for privacy is worth at least as much as my tangible
  need for health care.  It seems that the only people really concerned about
  the costs of my privacy needs are the ones who do not wish to pay it, e.g. the
  insurance companies, health care organizations, etc., whose bottom line profit
  will suffer if they accede to the individuals' desire for privacy.
  
  Surely, there must be a balance between the tangible costs and the intangible
  needs.  S.1360 is not such as balance as it stands now.  I am not willing to
  pay the costs of increased efficiency of medical care if my privacy is totally
  usurped.  But neither should I have to totally give up health care in order
  to have my privacy.  The concept is ridiculous.  If others want this increased
  efficiency, let them sign away their right to privacy on a consent form in
  order to access the "higher quality health care" (;-)).  But to have my 
  representatives give away all of my privacy in the name of increased efficiency?No way!  I want basic health care _with_ my privacy intact, and I believe that
  a majority of Americans feel the same way.
  
  Thanks for listening.
  
  Connie Page