[This is the heading over a letter from Mrs Jo Greenhorn in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Given calls by Labour’s Richard Baker for the release of the medical records of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, I believe he, and his party, have questions to answer ahead of the Scottish elections next year (“Row sparks new Megrahi records call”, The Herald, October 1).
Can we assume that the Labour Party disapproves of Data Protection laws?
This is what Mr Baker implies every time he calls for the full publication of a particular person’s medical records. These laws either cover all of us or none.
Such laws exist to ensure no medical professional, or indeed, politician, can breach the rights of any patient.
So, are medical records covered by Data Protection law? Yes or no? If yes, Mr Baker should fall silent on the matter. If no, Labour needs to clarify its policy.
The authority to make such a change does not exist at Holyrood. It would need to be made from Westminster.
Were this not the case the Scottish Government could have authorised, for example, the release of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) report on Megrahi’s case some time ago.
Labour in government in London prevented this by using Data Protection laws to withhold vital evidence for Megrahi’s appeal. I would admire Mr Baker more if the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt provoked equally strenuous demands from him for clearing the route to that very thing happening.
The SCCRC stated in 2007 that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred at the original trial. That statement is not hidden by Data Protection laws.
Mr Baker and his party do not seem interested in the serious doubts about Megrahi’s conviction. That they choose instead to back a foreign government that paid some $2 million (£1.26m) to the star witness at that trial.
That same government in Washington breaches international protocol by attempting to interfere in Scottish affairs.
That's an absolute cracker of a letter!
ReplyDeleteThanks Rolfe but they butchered it and left the following sentence just hanging and making no sense." Grrrr. I don't mind editing but I wish they'd leave the result grammatically correct.
ReplyDelete"That they choose instead to back a foreign government that paid some $2 million (£1.26m) to the star witness at that trial."
This was the original.
ReplyDelete"Sir
Given calls by Labour's Richard Baker for the release of the medical records of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, I believe he, and his Party, now have some questions to answer ahead of the Scottish elections next year. (Row sparks new Megrahi records call, Herald 1 Oct)
Can we assume that the Labour Party disapproves of Data Protection laws? This is what Mr Baker implies every time he calls for the full publication of a particular person's medical records. These laws either cover all of us or none. Such laws exist to ensure no medical professional, or indeed, politician, can breach the rights of any patient. So, are medical records covered by Data Protection law? Yes or no? If yes, Baker should immediately fall silent on this issue. If no, Labour in Scotland need to immediately clarify their policy. The people of Scotland really need to know.
The surprise for Mr Baker, however, is that the authority to make such a change does not exist at Holyrood. It would need to be made from Westminster. Were this not the case the Scottish Government could have authorised, for example, the release of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report in its entirety some time back. Mr Baker's bosses in London prevented this using Data Protection laws to protect their own skins and to withhold vital evidence needed for Megrahi's appeal. It is worrying that Mr Baker in his shadow justice role is unfamiliar with how these things work.
It is no disgrace to seek the truth but I would admire Mr Baker more if the doubts surrounding Megrahi's guilt provoked equally strenuous demands from him for the clearing of the route to that very thing. The SCCRC stated publicly in 2007 that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred at the original trial. That statement is not hidden by Data Protection laws. That he, with his Party, is not interested in the serious doubts about Megrahi’s conviction should disturb us all. That they choose instead to back a foreign government, the very government who paid around $2 million to the star witness at that trial, while it breaches international protocol by attempting to interfere in Scottish affairs, simply because it seems like a good opportunity to attack the Scottish National Party, is even worse. Shame on Richard Baker and on the Labour Party."
I have deleted a comment which read as follows:
ReplyDelete"mack°intosh
"hello world, who decodes the enigma? I am a novel digital spider which was born to open the raincoat to the Lockerbie Secrets.
Think logic°ally why I revolt against my foster parents?
As soon as I have finished my spin you hear of me. Believes it becomes very very interesting.
"100407"
I made the mistake of clicking on the commentator's identity and thereby infected my computer with a very nasty little virus.
I wondered about that Robert. It was a bit bizarre even for us! ; )
ReplyDeleteHave had two calls and two texts from friends who ask, "Please tell me you are not solely responsible for that letter in the Herald Jo." Haha. OMG I am ruined! : )
ReplyDeleteMISSION LOCKERBIE. attn. "Mach" intosh,
ReplyDeleteBravo we wait for news...
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
With regard to the releasing personal medical information I came across the following yesterday -
ReplyDelete'PROTECTING PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY'.
This is a report by NHS Scotland. Here are some excerpts from it -
'3.2 The Data Protection Act came into force in March 2000. Its purpose is to protect the right of the individual to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data. As far as NHS Scotland is concerned, a key requirement is in Schedule 1 of the Act. This requires organisations to process fairly and lawfully any information which might enable a patient to be identified.
3.4 In order to be lawful, the Information Commissioner takes the view that data controllers must comply both with statute and with common law. This has a bearing on the need for patients to give consent before patient identifying information is shared.
3.7 This Act [the Human Rights Act 1998] implements the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8 of the ECHR gurantees respect for a person's private and family life. Disclosure of personal medical information would be a bteach of that right unless it was 'in accordance with the law' and necessary for the protection of health. This means that patient identifying information should not be disclosed unless there is a lawful basis to do so, such as the consent of the patient, compliance with a legal requirement or the need to protect life.
3.9 The common law in Scotland is based on precedent. As a result its impact is not always clear and it may change over time. Whilst various interpretations of the common law may be possible, there is widespread acceptance that it reinforces the need to obtain consent from patients before sharing information about them.'
- http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/publications/ppcr/ppcr-03.htm.
Thanks for that Michael. Isn't it disappointing that confidentiality only exists for some politicians if it isn't a Nationalist government upholding patients' rights.
ReplyDelete