THE FACTS:

UK newspaper The Times reported on July 6, 2009 that a Conservative Party government would consider giving Britons the option of transferring their National Health Service (NHS) patient records to private companies.

At present, all NHS patient records are held in a centralised system in accordance with the reigning Labour government’s policy.

Two of the companies nominated by The Times as lead candidates to store the sensitive data are Microsoft and Google.

Conservative Party leader David Cameron has campaigned for deletion of centralised IT systems in the past.

THE VIEWS:

Chief Political Correspondent Sam Coates in The Times:

“The Tories hope that users will be able to choose from a range of private sector websites, possibly including those operated by Bupa, the healthcare provider. This has raised issues of privacy and security, with MPs and health professionals warning it could hamper doctors’ ability to access medical records quickly in an emergency.

It has also raised questions about the party’s links to Google. Steve Hilton, one of David Cameron’s closest advisers, is married to Rachel Whetstone, the company’s vicepresident of global communications and public affairs. Mr Cameron flew to San Francisco to address the Google Zeitgeist conference in 2007 at the company’s expense. Five months ago, it was announced that Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, was joining a Conservative business forum to advise on economic policy.”

BREAKING IT DOWN:

A) An independent study needs to be carried out to determine whether patient records would be safer in private hands or in a centralised system.

If security of personal information is the main concern, then the truth about the best approach needs to be found.

WHAT’S YOUR OPINION?

Is choice in the storage of personal health information a good thing?

Which option do you think would be more secure?

Are there issues other than security to consider?

Is there a particular company you would like your information to be stored with?