GCXZ

No, this is something different. The care.data scheme is designed to share health records with other sections of the NHS and with third parties, such as researchers or private pharmaceutical companies. In the Telegraph recently, Dr Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, argued for the myriad health details of the nation to be more widely disseminated for the benefit of all. They were "extraordinarily valuable" to health researchers, he said, helping us to understand the causes of disease: the link between smoking and lung cancer, for instance, was demonstrated by analysing the medical histories of thousands of doctors.

These details will include NHS number, date of birth, postcode, gender and ethnicity, and a variety of medical information such as referrals to specialists, family history, screening tests and alcohol habits. Some data considered sensitive, such as sexually transmitted diseases or abortions, will be exempt – though why these should be considered any more private than other conditions is not clear – and the exceptions will be reviewed at some future date. Furthermore, this data will be kept indefinitely and periodically topped up.

At first, the Government had intended the programme to be compulsory: I had not appreciated that NHS medical records are the property of the Health Secretary, who, theoretically, can do what he likes with them. (Incidentally, why can't we just keep our own records on a smart card and carry them around to be updated when we have treatment?) However, given the sensitivity of the reform, people will be allowed to opt out – ministers, though, are anxious to limit the numbers of those who do.

While the leaflet does advise that we can tell our GP if we do not wish to have our records extracted, this is not prominently advertised, in the clear hope that many people won't bother and will be enrolled by default. Wouldn't it have been better to include an opt-out form with the leaflet to send on to our doctor if we chose to? In any case, as reported today, this whole exercise may be in breach of EU data protection regulations, and won't be allowed to proceed.

Even if it does get the green light from Brussels, the way it is being handled is deeply unsatisfactory. The problem with (perhaps the intention of) this type of information campaign is that lots of people will simply throw away the leaflet unread, and lose the chance to exercise their right to opt out. There are perfectly laudable reasons for wanting to mine our data, but we need to be told, in clear terms, how it is to be used, who will be allowed to see it and what the risks are of identification.

The principle of informed consent is being somewhat loosely applied here. And, as letters to this newspaper testify, when people suspect something is not being properly acknowledged, they are reluctant to take part. Yesterday, for instance, it was reported that drug and insurance companies will be able to buy patient information from the HSCIC. Yes, there are safeguards to make individual identification difficult; but it won't be impossible. And if you doubt my word on this, take a look at a comprehensive analysis compiled by a Hampshire GP, Dr Neil Bhatia, at care-data.info, and make up your own mind. His point is that those who declare themselves happy to take part because the project is completely anonymous have been given a misleading impression.

Even the HSCIC conceded yesterday that a "small risk" exists that certain patients could be "re-identified", because insurers and health-sector companies can match their own data against the "pseudonymised" official records. You don't have to be paranoid to see how such information would be of great interest to insurance companies.

But why do we have to justify our concerns at all? It is for the state to be open with us about its intentions, and not use sleight of hand to get its way.