Government committee investigation of implantable electronic health record chips

Government-Mandated Microchip Implantation

Government-Mandated Chip Implantation in Citizens:

Technological Breakthrough or Privacy Disaster?

Government-Mandated Chip Implantation in Citizens:

Technological Breakthrough or Privacy Disaster?

In a world in which new technology turns over nearly every day, individuals around the world, and particularly in the United States, continually jump at the chance to integrate these new technologies into their own lives. Generally, we as Americans view technology as a convenience, created to make our lives easier. From GPS systems in our cars to GPS systems on our children, it seems that no technology is off-limits. Perhaps, though, our continual interest in these technologies lies in our ability to take them or leave them. Some may view the placement of a GPS tracking chip in a child's coat as a dream come true, while others may find it excessive. How then, would a technologically-obsessed nation react if our choice to consume was taken away?

Such may be the case if the government passes a mandate that would involve the implanting of an electronic health record (EHR) into every U.S. citizen. This procedure would involve inserting a chip or radio frequency identification device (RFID) into an individual, which would contain all medical information. Access to this complete and accurate health information would help reduce issues pertaining to patient safety and identification. The idea of implanting such microchips into the human body is an idea that stems as far back as the field of science and technology itself. In 1967, attorney and law professor Alan Westin publically discussed the possibility of "permanent implacements of 'tagging' devices on or in the body," believing that if such technology were relevant to humans, new capacities for screening and tracking would be implemented into societies in a way that would greatly benefit these respective societies in their entirety (Westin, 1967, pp. 85-86).

On first glance, such an idea seems revolutionary. However, certain privacy issues come into play, which transfer the concept of such chip-implantation from revolutionary to unethical. In beginning to understand which route is the correct route, one must weigh the pros and cons of such a proposed mandate.

Pros and Cons

The utilization of such technology in terms of the medical field is one that has proved successful in its smaller-scale implementations in years passed. Coray Tate, clinical research director at KLAS, notes, "It's widely agreed upon that such barcoding at the bedside does improve patient safety . . . that's been proven without any doubt." (Miliard, 2011, p. 1). The success that has been seen on a smaller-scale hospital level has the capacity to transform the way the healthcare system in the United States is run. Imagine, for instance, a situation in which an individual requires emergency medical care. This individual is on a business trip, far from the comfort of their own home community, and regular medical provider. Upon reaching the emergency room, doctors and caregivers need only scan this individual's medical history located on his RFID before administering drugs that are suitable to the individual's needs in order to save his or her life.

Such an implantation within the United States would likely streamline the healthcare system in a way that can revolutionize how medical treatment is given. In addition to being clearer, this system is far more cost efficient in terms of time and money, eliminating the need for paper and storage of files. No longer will individuals need worry about allergic reactions, time-delays, faulty or missing medical records, etc. Instead, a streamlined and accurate system will allow individuals to be treated anywhere within the country without fear that past medical records will be unavailable to them at new locations. On the surface, the idea of such a reform seems nothing but revolutionary and exceedingly helpful to the field of medicine and technology. However, certain ethical dilemmas also rise which make the decision to enact such a reform more difficult.

The main con that has been cited continuously in this debate comes with regard to one's personal privacy and the ethical treatment of such privacy by others. Critics note that the United States Federal Government does not have a comprehensive privacy law, and at present, the United States Supreme Court has not interpreted the Fourth Amendment to include things like RFIDs of EHRs in the capacity in which the committee at hand is reviewing (Herbert 2006, p. 417). In a case such as this, the issues of lacking privacy and excessive involvement by the government veer further from the notion of democracy in which Americans are accustomed to living (Wisegeek, 2011, p. 1).