digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at mashable.com

Want Google To Have Access to Your Prescription Records?

mashable.com — Google just got access to millions of prescription records, and most likely, so did you.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 7, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

87 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • brwright, on 04/07/2009, -1/+28Google only gets access to them if you give them permission.
  • ShempRider, on 04/07/2009, -0/+23This is a slippery slope. Next they'll be taking pictures of your house from the street.
  • techferret, on 04/07/2009, -1/+20Guys and gals....Google has access to a lot more then just medical prescriptions through their Google Health service...if you authorize it. And on the topic of Personal Health Records, Microsoft can do the same thing with HealthVault. If ya don't want Google and Microsoft to know, then don't request it. Simple. Just realize that your health records will be heading to electronic formats one way or the other. Its already happening now.
  • eco57, on 04/07/2009, -0/+15It looks like you have to actively import the data from the pharmacy into Google Heath. You can still safely use the pharmacies otherwise.
  • replaysMike, on 04/07/2009, -2/+13and I thought I was getting enough Viagra spam before...
  • Fabbyfubz, on 04/07/2009, -4/+14"Look at this guy, he needs an inhaler and allergy meds"
    "Haa, what a nerd"
  • samsmartjr, on 04/07/2009, -0/+10Wait until you get some for ED
  • inactive, on 04/07/2009, -9/+18No. Especially, when the government can easily arm wrestle google into getting that information. I fear government more than Google honestly. Private companies have no power over people, only government does.
  • Mockylock, on 04/07/2009, -1/+10No doubt. People whine about the government doing a fraction of what google has it's hands in. But, it's okay for google to do it.
  • EdLau, on 04/07/2009, -3/+12Soon we can google people to see if they have STDs
  • PeaceSuccess2be, on 04/07/2009, -10/+18No, I would not want them to have that information, it is private between myself, my doctor and my pharmacy. I am glad I have never gone to any of the pharmacy chains mentioned - and now I for sure never will!
  • KevinMalone, on 04/07/2009, -2/+9Damn Google, you scary
  • borez, on 04/07/2009, -7/+14Google is starting to go too far with its data mining. IMO it needs to stop.
  • peacelvr, on 04/07/2009, -3/+10Soon there will be attempts at restricting rights based on health records, including prescriptions.
  • inactive, on 04/07/2009, -1/+7haha you nailed it man. DOWN WITH NERDS, amirite?
  • one504, on 04/07/2009, -2/+8Only if they let me insert Adwords code.
  • tomcat4u, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6Ugh, enough already with the paranoia. This article's blurb is misleading. Google does not have your records unless you ALLOW them to. I personally have let them. Why? Because I currently have to balance refills on 3 different medications, and have been shifted around to 4 different hospitals. At each one, you have to fill out the SAME basic info, and give the doctor the SAME spiel you gave the last one. It's inefficient. I for one accept our "data mining" overlords! Thanks for your great service, Googs.
  • DocOrpheus, on 04/07/2009, -2/+8"Private companies have no power over people"

    Now that you're done telling jokes, let's get serious here...
  • failedpimp, on 04/07/2009, -1/+7Google = Skynet


    think about it.
  • purple, on 04/07/2009, -2/+7Give them an inch, and they take a foot.
  • failedpimp, on 04/07/2009, -0/+5If you have an STD you should tell your partner **before** you have sex.
  • phylaxer, on 04/07/2009, -1/+6who is responsible for making sure they follow HIPAA privacy protections?
  • raphtee, on 04/07/2009, -0/+4Too bad Microsoft already had this information nearly 2 years ago. http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-plans-medical-recor ... Large scale medical information services have been around for years, and Google is not the first and wont be the last to offer such a service. The service requires you opt in by the way so its not like these evil nameless corporations are collecting your data without your consent. There seems to be a new knee jerk reaction people have to anything relating to Google these days.
  • beesaretasty, on 04/07/2009, -0/+4I didn't like streetview until I used it...

    But to answer the question, no.
  • MalaysianMafia, on 04/07/2009, -0/+4"People with a history of mental conditions and embarrassing deficiencies may now have to worry about Google using that information in statistical analysis or more (prescription drug ads anyone?)."

    uh, a statistical analysis? oh no!

    wait... they do that all the time already, BECAUSE statistical analysis protects individual privacy...
  • ShempRider, on 04/08/2009, -0/+4Yes. And they are.
  • dmbchris, on 04/08/2009, -0/+4 A lot of people have access to your medical information, including the company maintaining the database that houses that information. Is there any reason we should trust Google more or less than your HMO?
  • Mohdoo, on 04/08/2009, -0/+4I don't exactly understand the harm of google knowing what medicine I take O_o
  • inactive, on 04/07/2009, -3/+7Burried for being sensationalistic. You have to give them permission to import your info first.
  • MalaysianMafia, on 04/07/2009, -0/+3Google already has access to your e-mails, your address and pictures of your house, phone number, etc etc...

    Why the hell are you worrying about your medical records that absolutely NOBODY cares about getting into the hands of... well... you using google to access them?
  • fenny45, on 04/07/2009, -1/+4Try thinking about employers. Since most provide you healthcare, they wouldn't want to hire people with a lot of medical problems. They could read into what meds you take and make misinformed judgments about you.
  • LonesomeFighter, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3i heard on an mtv ad, 1 out of 2 sexually active people will get an std. damn. wrap your tool up.
  • Nboy514, on 04/07/2009, -1/+4@ Corpsenot: Have you ever heard of antipsychotics? Ever wonder what that would reflect about ones psychiatric record? Think then type.
  • Amurican, on 04/07/2009, -3/+6If you don't want them to have your records then don't use Google Health, what seems to be the big deal????
  • beatitlikeacop, on 04/07/2009, -1/+3Diggers don't have sex with "the ladies"
  • iletumi, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2Don't be evil
  • MelekTawus, on 04/07/2009, -2/+4You couldn't craft a better story to raise the ire of the paranoid crazies out there.
  • srujanlive, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2Simple Answer: Don't request your records through Google. That shouldn't be hard, should it?
  • algaeturd, on 04/07/2009, -2/+4You only get it if you ask for it. Nobody is prying into your lives except for your government.
    Sleep easy, now.
  • iletumi, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2you can still get a STD with a condom.


    Best protection is intelligence and common sense. Having sex with random people even if you know them for a few mins, hours, days....ya you got whats coming to you.
  • cougar618, on 04/07/2009, -1/+3Buried as *****. You have to import your medical history into google from walgreens/cvs/etc. If the government could force prescription info from google then it can do the same with walgreens/cvs/etc.
  • flygirl62, on 04/07/2009, -0/+2Of course they wouldn't SAY that that is the reason they are denying you employment. They'd explain it away with some other excuse. And it takes a LOT to *prove* that someone is discriminating if they don't outright admit that they are.
  • mrCdawg, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2Wrong Wrong Wrong. I trust google with my medical records more than I trust those analog medical offices that have them now. As far as I see it, this is great for the mass "digitalization" of medical records.
  • chaosatom, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2I trust Google more than the f******** government.
  • LonesomeFighter, on 04/08/2009, -2/+3"medical records that absolutely NOBODY cares about"

    well, your boss or future boss might care about them. if see your drugs they can possibly predict your medical problems, and if they think you are going to be sick too much or die they may not promote you or hire you.
    But as long as Google has good security, and you are an average joe, you should be fine.
  • je12u, on 04/08/2009, -0/+1Way to not see the big picture. It IS personal information...What if I had access to your info and decided to tell everyone that you can now have sex again because the pills cured your erectile dysfunction...but don't get too happy just yet... no one will have sex with you because the AIDS medication you're on probably isn't for a headache. Oh I also noticed that while applying for that new job within my company that you're on anti-depressants. That kind of makes me uncomfortable, next applicant please.
  • charlie6969, on 04/10/2009, -0/+1dugg for opening up a discussion on this.
  • Rain12913, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1First of all, I was answering the question your post ended with, which was: "So you take xanax, anti-depressants, and anti-biotics. Who ***** doesn't?"

    My answer to this question was correct. The number of people who are NOT on Xanax, antidepressants, and antibiotics is greater than the number of people who are, and if you can show me evidence that disproves this, I will gladly concede to you.

    Regarding your last post: your logic is flawed. While you are correct in saying that people SHOULD, in an ideal world, be unconcerned about their prescription information being public, the reality is that they need to be. Of course there's no good reason for anybody to be ashamed of the medication they take (okay maybe STD meds are kind of embarrassing, but let's keep that one out of this for simplicity sake). If someone has high blood pressure, they shouldn't be ashamed of taking Propranolol. If someone has Schizophrenia, they shouldn't be ashamed of taking Haloperidol. These two conditions, like every other condition that one can be prescribed medication for, are capable of affecting ANYONE, and there is no reason to be ashamed.

    Contrary to what you’ve said, it is EXTREMELY easy to infer what medical condition somebody has when you know what medications they’re on. While many medications are used to treat a host of conditions, many others are only used for one condition. Psychiatric medication is particularly informative in this regard, as you can simply google the name of any drug and see which mental disorders it is used to treat.

    The reality, however, is that there are a good number of people who discriminate against those who are mentally ill, and giving these people the ability to search through anyone's prescription history to see if they've ever taken psychiatric medication will only make this worse. You think you can tell if someone is a "schizophrenic ***** up"? Perhaps you could tell if someone with severe Schizophrenia were having a psychotic episode, as that is not a difficult task. There are MILLIONS of Schizophrenics, however, who live normal lives and hold jobs just like you and me because they happen to be very responsive to medication. I know a Physician who is Schizophrenic. He’s quite well-respected and successful, and most people, including all of his patients and some of his colleagues, do not know this fact about him because he does so well on medication and doesn’t display symptoms. If people could look into his medication history and find out he's on antipsychotics, he would be judged by his mental illness and not by the good work he does. This is an extreme example, however, as the vast majority of people who are taking medication for mental disorders have less severe disorders than Schizophrenia. While you may be able to pick out a Schizophrenic person if you’re around them every day, you certainly would be in for a surprise if you were to find out how many people you know are on antidepressants. As I said before, this world is filled with ignorant people, and mental health is an area that people are particularly ignorant about. Do I really need to tell you what would happen if potential employers were given the ability to check people’s prescription records before hiring them?

    Even if we did live in a perfect world where people didn’t have to worry about their mental or physical ailments being used to discriminate against them, don’t you believe in the right to privacy? I personally don’t do anything in my living room that I’m ashamed of or that would get me in trouble (okay maybe I smoke a little weed in there, but that’s besides the point) but does that mean I shouldn’t be opposed to letting anyone march up to my window to watch me 24/7?
  • inactive, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1leftist critiques of corporations are often hollow, misdirected and perverse. The reason corporations have the power they do is the government, yet the left wants government further involved in corporate life.

    Leftists often complain, "There are corporations out there bigger than some states!" Well, good. At least corporations have the possibility of getting most revenue through peaceful means, whereas states are necessarily monopolies on plunder and brutality. To the extent the state is shrunk, corporations lose their worst attributes. They may not become perfect, but would be completely tolerable.

    I gleefully imagine a day all corporations in the world are bigger than any states. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.