In the Lords, the Conservatives argued that using anonymous prescription data for targeted mailing was fine, but using personal patient data without permission was not. Labour chose to agree with the first of these points, dropping the section opposed by business, but retaining the section opposed by patient and some medical groups. The Liberal Democrats chose to side with Labour, quoting comments from the Information Commissioner Elizabeth France, who examines abuse of data protection laws. France's office says her comments should not be taken as a political endorsement of the clause. After the wrangling, almost no one is happy.
Medical researchers are furious.
Also, young professional women are very protective about their health information, given the fallacious judgments that are made on the basis of whether someone has had a sexually transmitted disease or a termination. In one way, this is more damaging than consent bias, where data may be skewed, but at least those wanting medical privacy receive treatment. Dr Richard Sullivan, head of clinical programmes for the Cancer Research Campaign, argues that cancer registries have an exemplary record of maintaining confidentiality, and can be trusted with patient records. It's up to us to explain why this research is important. Some think the government's compromise of a statutory advisory committee provides adequate safeguards for patients.