Often, in fact, “asks the permission to transmit data is significantly in excess with respect to the purposes for which the data are collected and should be processed.
The exposed part by a report of a consumer who had to undergo an ultrasound in a radiological study of Savona.
“At the time of putting your signature on the ‘usual’ form for the privacy – law in a note of the Codacons – the patient, instead of sign just like you normally do-most consumers decide to read some of the passages written on the form and discovers that, by signing, would be authorized to disclose your data (which?) ‘in Italy or abroad’ (?), the companyà of insurance companies, banks, and, as if that were not enough, the company; operating in the sector of transportation, shipping, or communications, professionals (such as?) and consultants (who?)”.
The List “is arguing from the time that, in the medical field, the modules on privacy and informed consent, may go and changed and made more transparent.
In the case of surgery, for example, the consensus seems to always più used by the doctors to escape from possible retaliation legal not to inform you actually the patient, by allowing him a free and informed choice.
Too often, the risks are highlighted in unclear. For this we ask to the ministry of Welfare which, for any intervention or even a simple diagnostic test, there is a standard model of informed consent the same in all of Italy, established directly by the Istituto superiore di sanità, authorized by the ministry of Health and by the Guarantor of privacy, in agreement with the different stakeholders, including of course doctors and consumers”.
To adjust the modeà delivery of the informed consent. “Often,” concludes the New – is given to the consumer 10 minutes before the intervention, making the renunciation is virtually impossible”.
Page published on 13 September 2009