Vaccine passports v medical privacy

Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:20 am

Vaccine passports v medical privacy

Post by Teebs »

At the moment I am involved in an attempt by the administrator of the estate of a deceased in the UK to obtain copies of the medical records of this person. It is a serious job because privacy of medical records - even for the deceased - is sacrosanct.

That brings us round to vaccine passports, where you are apparently may be obliged to disclose some of your medical records as a precondition for some activities.

Legally, the position is crystal clear: medical records (such as whether you are vaccinated or not - or even the result of a PCR test) are absolutely confidential and can only be disclosed with the CONSENT of the owner of that information.

You cannot be forced to disclose anything. That is illegal. 100%

The counter argument will be: "fine, do not consent if you don't want to tell us about your vaccination status, or the result of your PCR test, that is up to you, but you cannot come in to our premises unless you waive your rights and consent".

These premises could be any aircraft for example, sports stadium etc.

If private enterprise makes disclosure a condition, that narrows the argument between the individual and the enterprise. However, if the government produces legistlation that enables the coercion of disclosure, then we have a problem, with that legistlation clashing with other, older legistlation. You cannot have both medical privacy and government sponsored vaccine passports.

The other clash will come if the services provided by those private enterprises are (a) a monopoly and (b) essential.

Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Vaccine passports v medical privacy

Post by CoronanationStreet »

I see what you are saying as a principle, but any legislation and systems implemented as a result will be drafted and couched in terms which integrate them with previous legislation and include strong provisos for privacy which comply with the concerns raised.

I actually don't think there are as many bars to covid certification as people imagine, provided alternative routes open to all to achieving covid certification are made available. For instance, the govt would say you have the choice of proving your "status" by either vaccine or test or proving existing immunity. If people are vaccine hesitant then the other options are available.

The wider issue is that IF the aim is to preclude the spread of the virus, then vaccines themselves are secondary. Arguably ALL access should only be judged on negative tests, with no relevance given to vaccine status given the vaccines do not prevent you getting covid. In other words you could have a vaccine and enter a venue and still spread covid around and people could get it and spread it elsewhere afterwards. If all entrants to a venue or event were simply tested negative (and that must be subject to a highly accurate test) then that risk is lower than those with a vaccine only and no test.

Query what the motive is, if "vaccine" passports are introduced rather than simply covid cerification i.e. negative test.

Doubly - and most importantly - query why ANY form of covid certification is necessary if those at risk of causing unnecessary burden on the NHS have been vaccinated and the NHS has therefore already been "saved".

Unless saving the NHS is no longer the end game.

Post Reply