Medical anonymity

[Clay Olbon II <olbon@ix.netcom.com>]

It probably should no longer surprise me when the popular press is ignorant
of anonymity, but of course it still does.  There were several otherwise
excellent articles in the Detroit News today (http://www.detnews.com/) about
DNA research and inherited diseases (specifically breast cancer).  The gist
of one of the stories is that there are several reasons that deter people
from being tested for genetic predispositions to disease, but that one of
the primary ones is the fear of losing one's health insurance.  Nowhere in
the article was the possibility of anonymous testing mentioned.  This is a
severe oversight in my opinion.  Clearly, being tested for a genetic
disorder would not require disclosure of one's true name, and the testing
could be paid for in cash (of course providing genetic material could
eventually be indexed into a database to discover that true name, but I
doubt we are there yet, at least I hope not!)

The implication of most articles regarding this subject are that "there
ought to be a law" prohibiting disclosure by medical practioners.  Of
course, most of us would probably agree that the proper approach is allowing
non-disclosure by those tested.  I don't know whether this is currently
"legal", is there a legal requirement that medical practioners have "true
names" before testing?  

Medical testing provides a unique opportunity to acquaint the public with
the benefits of anonymity.  Most americans can clearly see the payoff - not
having your health insurance cancelled.  Other anonymous transactions have
somewhat less tangible benefits for the majority of americans (sorry to be
so america-centric, maybe I should change the phrasing to citizen-units ;-)

That's my minor rant for a Sunday AM.  Now back to my x-mas shopping!

        Clay

*******************************************************
Clay Olbon			    olbon@ix.netcom.com
sys-admin, engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc.
**********************************************tanstaafl