If you had a one-night stand, and you were worried that your wellness could be at risk to a sexually transmitted infection (STI), what would you do? Chances are, if you’re a logical person, you’d go to the doctor or a sexual health clinic and get it sorted out, but what if you knew that any test you took would appear automatically and immediately on your patient records, and any doctor, however irrelevant to their practice your sex life might be, could see intimate details of your personal affairs?
When anyone in the entire medical profession treats you, they are bound by confidentiality, and, currently, there are even stronger rules to protect the anonymity of patients in sexual health clinics. However, proposed changes to the law could damage this relationship and leave the sexual wellbeing of patients at risk, with fewer people seeking treatment.
Presently, when you access NHS sexual health or Genitourinary Medicine (GUM) clinics, they assign unique identification numbers to attendees which are entirely separated from general medical records and NHS numbers. However, thanks to an oversight in the recent Health and Social Care Act, STI clinics will no longer be requited to hold their data on separate stand alone systems. This means that clinics may then be expected to use the standard general NHS number, which will notify your GP, and any other NHS care providers you may consult in the future, of your STI history, diagnoses and treatments.
But is it really appropriate or necessary that your family doctor should know you once had a test for gonorrhoea? Though the NHS already has very strict confidentiality rules, and this legislation does not mean that the laws will be broken by the people caring for you, you will no longer be able to choose a service whereby your records remain anonymous and confidential. As most STIs can be diagnosed and treated on a single visit, without further medical care, there is no need for your family doctor to see such cases in your past.
Surveys have suggested that, by removing the anonymity and confidentiality of sexual health clinics, many people would be less inclined to seek treatment and advice, which could have a big impact on the prevalence of STIs. Therefore, if the aim, as it should be, is to see, treat and trace partners to guard against STI damage and future infection, surely we need to plug a hole in the current act, and stop health-seeking behaviour from being driven underground.
Comments are closed.