Loss of Privacy

Our current technology allows us to perform an EEG, EKG, or EMG to help in patient diagnosis. The problem is that they are large, bulky machines and a patient has to make an appointment to be scanned and then take considerable time in being scanned. Now, however, there is a new temporary skin tattoo that can accomplish the same tasks.

Modern methods of measuring the body’s activty, such as electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), and electromyography (EMG), use electrical signals to measure changes in brain, heart, and muscle activity, respectively. Unfortunately, they rely on bulky and uncomfortable electrodes that are mounted using adhesive tape and conductive gel—or even needles. Because of this, these types of measurements are limited to research and hospital settings and typically used over short periods of time because the contacts can irritate skin.

These limitations may be at an end, however. New research published in Science describes technology that allows electrical measurements (and other measurements, such as temperature and strain) using ultra-thin polymers with embedded circuit elements. These devices connect to skin without adhesives, are practically unnoticeable, and can even be attached via temporary tattoo.

All of the necessary components of the devices, including electrodes, electronic components, sensors, radio frequency communication components, and power supplies, are set within an extremely thin (about 30 μm) elastic polyester sheet. The sheet has a low elastic modulus (that is, it’s flexible) and no noticeable mass (about 0.09 g), so you have a lightweight, stretchable membrane.

The authors refer to their approach as an “epidermal electronic system” (EES), which is basically a fancy way of saying that the device matches the physical properties of the skin (such as stiffness), and its thickness matches that of skin features (wrinkles, creases, etc.). In fact, it adheres to skin only using van der Waals forces—the forces of attraction between atoms and molecules—so no adhesive material is required. Between the flexibility and the lack of adhesive, you wouldn’t really notice one of these attached.

Although you wouldn’t notice if one was attached, the authors have also said that the EES can be used as a temporary tattoo, just like the kinds children and sports fans wear.

While this is very interesting technology and the medical applications are wonderful, eventually, these will be used in a sort of big brother-ish way. All you need to do is bump into someone and you can place a nice tracking device on a person that they will be completely unaware of.

If successful, look for these devices to be expanded to the disabled and video game developers. They are already attempting to add wifi to it.

MIT has developed something similar, but it goes into the skin to measure things such as glucose and sodium levels.

You can view the tattoo in different places on the body at c-net.

At TEDxMaastricht, Daniel Kraft offers a fast-paced look at the next few years of innovations in medicine, powered by new tools, tests and apps that bring diagnostic information right to the patient’s bedside.

Beginning January 1st, residents of Massachusetts will have to give up a little bit more privacy in the state’s efforts to combat misuse of prescription drugs.

Under a law passed last summer, they will have to show a driver’s license or another approved ID before the druggist can give them prescriptions ranging from addictive opiates to certain medicines for diarrhea. Their purchases will be recorded in a massive database that will include their names, addresses and the kinds and amount of pills they take.

The law is similar to legislation passed in 33 states and being initiated in another 10 states. Studies suggest the programs can help combat prescription drug abuse, but the law has other consequences that play against the national debate about the size and reach of government.

All of the information is stored in a database overseen by DPH, whose job it is to filter the information and look for inconsistencies.

Margaret Clapp, chief of pharmacy at Massachusetts General Hospital, said the new law triples to quadruples the amount of data collected by the state.

It will require more clerical work for doctors and druggists as the number of prescriptions monitored expands from the current 3.5 million a year to an estimated range of nine to 11 million.

Did you catch that? 9 to 11 million prescriptions will be monitored in the state of Massachusetts alone. This law is said to be able to keep track of people who are “doctor shopping” as well as doctors who are over prescribing medications.

The new law, which some pharmacy chains are already following ahead of the Jan. 1 implementation date, requires reporting on all prescription drugs listed under federal drug Schedules III through V, which include scores of more commonly prescribed drugs.

While pharmacists worry that they will feel the wrath of angry customers who have no idea that the law even exists, the law isn’t mandatory, creating more inconsistencies in the system.

Doctors and pharmacists aren’t required to consult the database.

The medical society also is concerned about confidentiality, particularly if police can access the information. Ryder worries that patients who take medications for mental health treatment are especially vulnerable in that regard.

According to the DPH regulations, access to the database will be limited to “authorized and authenticated individuals.” Law enforcement agencies will be able to request data involving a criminal investigation or prosecution. Such requests will be made to the attorney general, the state police or the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

So, essentially, this law is useless. It’s meant to track millions of prescriptions and quadruple the current database, but isn’t required. When something is suspicious, law enforcement still need to access the data through an intermediary and, likely, a warrant. How exactly does that change anything and how does it help abuse of prescription medications?

It is difficult to see how this law does anything other than force individuals to show approved ID and link their ID to their medications. 11 million is a large number of prescriptions and if common, non-abused drugs are in this database, what is its real purpose?

Peoria, Arizona is pursuing the idea of forcing customers to give up their fingerprints in order to get some medicines labeled as likely to be abused and involved in cases of fraud.

Peoria law-enforcement officials this month proposed an ordinance that would require anyone filling prescriptions for drugs such as OxyContin and Percocet to show ID and be fingerprinted at the pharmacy counter, including anyone picking up a prescription for a family member or friend.

Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, called it an “overreaction.”

Indeed it is a huge overreaction and an invasion of privacy. There are many people who take certain drugs on a regular basis and do not want to be in some database simply because they might need this medicine to live.

Pochoda of the ACLU said that to collect fingerprints of everyone filling a prescription is “like saying we’ll take a blood sample of every person, and later if they are a suspect we’ll use it.”

Details of the plan will be presented to Arizona State Board of Pharmacy in January. Currently, the state tracks certain prescriptions in an effort to track “doctor shoppers” and abuse drugs such as those containing pseudoephedrine.

Peoria City Attorney Steve Kemp is pushing for the measure to be made into law. While prescription fraud cases have increased in the city of Peoria, it is still relatively small compared to legitimate prescriptions. It is also not understood how the data will be collected or stored. What drugs would be on the list requiring fingerprints has also not been released.

Medical privacy would also be of concern. How would HIPAA laws be protected? Will the fingerprint database be connected to other pharmacies. Will it simply be added to the current criminal database? If there are two databases, who would be authorized to have access to it? If something like this were made a law, your fingerprints would likely be accessible to police, pharmacies, doctor’s offices, and insurance companies.

This proposed ordinance would be a huge infringement of individual rights. It will not have the desired effect that government officials are hoping for. Those who are going to abuse these drugs will simply drive a few miles down the road and get their prescription filled in another city or simply steal the drugs. It will only affect, and hurt, honest citizens who must take the medications that the city deems to be on their abusive list.

If passed, the city only need to sit back and wait for the first person denied their medication because they refuse to give up their fingerprints to sue after suffering without their medication. Given the fact that most fingerprint scanners are easily fooled, this program is doomed to failure. Hopefully, the city of Peoria realizes this before implementing it.

In this year’s edition of scaring the crap out of people, the NDM-1 is supposed to be the next superbug that’s going to end the world and kill almost everyone. It’s resistant to every antibiotic out there, except two. Expect the news to highlight the fact that it’s resistant to “nearly every antibiotic,” and hyping this superbug up instead of being realistic.

Some think it will be far worse than H1N1, however, since that turned out to be more of a scare than the end of the world, it’s too early to really say whether the NDM-1 will fizzle in the same way. NDM-1 is an enzyme in bacteria that changes the DNA of the bacteria, making it difficult to combat with the normal course of antibiotics. It is typically found inside bacteria, such as e. coli, and can be spread through improper food handling and medical procedures. It is becoming more prevalent because of medical tourism to India where NDM-1 originated.