Relying on a single instance could be viewed as a logical fallacy of anecdote.
As you’ve taken us down that path:
A woodscrew can be driven with a hammer. Some may aver that hammers are cheap and driving a screw that way is quick, so it saves on labour. I reckon there’s a better way.
The potential of a central health database cannot be denied. The risks shouldn’t be.
My questions are:
- does the system that we have adequately realise the potential and;
- does it adequately mitigate the risks?
As pointed out above, the system was designed from the beginning to save money. From the available evidence, that focus has compromised the system. For example, the use of a document format (pdf) to store some data, instead of a database format, is indicative of compromises putting short-term cost considerations above usefulness and performance.
Like the hammer-driven screw, MyHealthRecord will work sometimes. Will it work well when most needed? Do we have the best tool for the job that we can afford? Do we have a cheap hammer, when we’d be far better off with a different tool altogether?
I was a supporter of the PCEHR. Then I found out about some of the corners that were cut and realised the impact on both the utility of the system and its security. They’ve changed the name and made it opt-out, when it really should have been put down.
Should we go back to the beginning and build a system focused on saving lives, promoting health and safeguarding our information? That would tacitly concede that both sides of politics have screwed up, to the tune of $billions. I reckon we should. I doubt it will happen.