It's a good idea if it works, but the confidentiality/security issues are immense. Because the all-embracing NHS IT project failed (spectacularly), there is no common security/authentication standard, and, even if there were, the security of the system would be limited to how well individual departments were run in hospitals, clinics, etc.
It's also going to be hellishly expensive. It's high time we did more cost-benefit calculations with regard to public policy. How many more lives would be saved, problems averted, etc. compared to not having such a system? What is the cost per incident averted?
As a comparison, we're one of the cities being inflicted with a "twenty is plenty" speed limit scheme. It's going to cost twelve million pounds here, just in signage alone. I've never seen any numbers for how many accidents it's likely to prevent, nor what the additional costs will be in increased pollution, slowed traffic (wasted time), more wear and tear on vehicles, etc. My guess is that the true cost will be between £3m and £20m every year (Bristol has 350,000 inhabitants - go figure). Yet the idiots in charge of us think it's a great idea. They're borrowing money to do it, of course.
In the NHS, one of the really big stupidities coming down the pipe shortly is on-line access to your own medical records, which is being imposed on GPs by the government. There are so many issues surrounding this it's hard to know where to start, but be aware your already over-stretched GP is about to be penalized for not setting this up by 2015. To seed the thought process, consider hacking, viruses, mistakes, telephone support, patients misunderstanding what's in the record, lawsuits, and so on.
Personally I'd prefer it if they simply got on with the job of looking after people.
Shout if you think almost all politicians are idiots.
E.
