Do Micro-Chip Implants Protect or Violate Privacy?
Pastor Dale Morgan
Do Micro-Chip Implants Protect or Violate Privacy?*
By JOSEPH BROWNSTEIN
ABC News Medical Unit
May 18, 2007—
A Florida adult-care facility is going ahead with plans to implant
identity chips into patients with Alzheimer's disease who are in its
care, despite protests that it is a form of branding.
Alzheimer's Community Care in West Palm Beach will implant a radio
frequency identification chip into Alzheimer's patients with the consent
of their families or the patients themselves if they are deemed competent.
The chip, which is slightly larger than a grain of rice, is implanted
under the skin of the right forearm. Each chip will contain a unique
16-digit number that, when scanned in an emergency room, will link to
the patient's medical records.
Mary Barnes, the president and CEO of Alzheimer's Community Care, said
the RFID chips, manufactured by VeriChip Corp., provided the best means
of giving medical personnel access to a patient's medical history, since
people with Alzheimer's often cannot relay that information themselves.
"Our patients are the most fragile and vulnerable of any population,"
Barnes said.
While the RFID implants have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, VeriChip is testing the effectiveness of the chips in a
real-world situation to see if Alzheimer's patients with the chip
receive "quicker and better treatment" than those without, said VeriChip
CEO Scott Silverman.
Safety and Consent Questions
Opponents of the chip program say it raises serious ethical considerations.
"This whole medical trial & really raises some pretty important issues
about informed consent," said Katherine Albrecht, the founder of the
advocacy group Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering.
Albrecht is concerned that Alzheimer's patients are being enrolled in
what she considers a potentially risky study without their consent.
When the FDA approved VeriChip's product, it mentioned potential
problems, including electromagnetic interference, failure of the chip to
function properly and adverse bodily reactions.
The FDA approval letter did not specify the severity or likelihood of
these risks.
"Any medical device approved by the FDA has potential risk factors
listed in the approval letter. VeriChip is no different," said
Silverman, who had an RFID chip implanted in his arm in 2002 -- more
than two years before the FDA first approved the chips -- and has
experienced none of the potential problems.
The FDA did not reply to requests for comment.
But Albrecht sees VeriChip as a risk without reward.
"There are other technologies that are far less invasive and can achieve
the same goal," she said.
Albrecht promotes the MedicAlert bracelet as the ideal way to solve the
problem of Alzheimer's patients who cannot relay their medical
information reliably. MedicAlert bracelets bear a recognizable medical
symbol on the outside and have the patient's medical conditions listed
on the back.
While Barnes worries that the MedicAlert bracelet could break off or be
removed by the patient, Albrecht believes it is just as likely that an
RFID chip would fail or the system that holds patients' electronic
records could crash.
An Issue of Ethics?
Bioethicists don't share all of Albrecht's concerns.
Jason Karlawish of the University of Pennsylvania said that existing
safeguards protect Alzheimer's patients and others in a similar
situation from being exploited for research studies.
In this case, he said, there appears to be minimal risk, and the
research is for the direct benefit of the patient.
"There is a well-worked-out guide to conduct ethics for what is and
isn't permissible," Karlawish said, calling Albrecht's objection to
families' consenting on behalf of the Alzheimer's patients "simply not
correct."
Jeffrey Spike of Florida State University agreed, pointing out that
families are regularly called upon to make life-or-death decisions for
loved ones who are mentally incapacitated.
But he worries because the chip program has not yet been evaluated by a
review board. Such a board, Spike said, would need to look at potential
risks -- both physical and psychological -- and let prospective
participants know their right to withdraw by having their chip removed
or deactivated.
"If this has not been reviewed by [a review board], then it's natural to
be suspicious that it has been carefully thought out," said Spike.
Barnes said a review board will be assembled in the next few weeks, to
be headed by Andrew Passeri, a board member of Alzheimer's Community
Care and the former president and CEO of Staten Island University
Hospital in New York.
Under the current schedule, Barnes said, the board hopes to begin the
program in August.
But while it examines the potential hazards of a chip program, Barnes
believes that in the ideal situation, consent would not be an issue.
She said families should start coming for services and resources in the
early stages of Alzheimer's, when patients are still competent and can
take part in planning their care.
Then patient consent for something like this would be unimpeachable --
it would be their own.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures