Storing medical information below the skin’s surface (2019)
news.mit.edu
news.mit.edu
"We can't trust you to keep vital information about your own body, so we'll literally just print it into your skin in a way you can't even read". Is it possible to be any more paternalistic?
Issues with digitizing and/or making medical history easily accessible to patients is a completely separate issue.
But yes "developing nations" is a convenient excuse to dial the paternalism up to 11. Presumably the people there are still people, who can remember facts, retain paper records themselves (eg vaccine cards this article so quickly dismisses), and have identities for keeping local paper records and digital ones in the capital. If you still think tattoos would be a worthwhile addition, then every patient still needs to be given an individual choice, preferably with visible ink to maintain informed consent.
* https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/tattooing-in-jewish...
> the medical record is stored and controlled by the patient within the patient’s skin
Can the patient remove or alter it? If not I don't feel like it's accurate to say they "control" it.
>the patches deliver a pattern in the skin that is invisible to the naked eye but can be scanned with a smartphone that has the infrared filter removed.
So any attacker can pull up your vaccination history (in theory your identity depending on what is imprinted in the dots) with a drive-by attack that requires nothing more sophisticated than a cellphone camera? That is exactly the opposite of how I want my medical records secured.
I don't want medical records stored in a place I can't control.
I've already read here that whatever you disclose with a request to be off the records, goes IN the record with a note "the patient said that was to be off the record"
So I don't play along.