The Legal Department of the English Agency for Data Protection introduced the report number 242/2010, which set position on to a query that the English Tax Agency request the English Agency for Data Protection (AEPD), following the submission of documents to the Tax Office made a number of doctors who were inspecting in taxes.
Tax Office claimed that the doctor will give, among other documents, medical records and copies of consent forms signed by patients prior to surgical interventions that were to be submitted.
The AEPD considered that the information required by the tax office was personal data relating to the health of patients, and irrelevant to the ongoing investigation, and delivery to the Tax Office would in fact an assignment of the same, while supposed revelation data to a third party.
Assuming this premise, it was noted that health data can be transferred only when prescribed by a law or when expressly agreed to the affected.
Regarding the first possibility, after reviewing the rules tributaria, la AEPD concluye que esta normativa impone la obligación de facilitar la información que revista “trascendencia tributaria”, pero que los datos pedidos por la Agencia Tributaria no pueden considerarse como tales.
Además, la Agencia de Protección de Datos recuerda que la ley básica que regula la historia clínica (Ley 41/2002, de Autonomía del Paciente) exige que el acceso a las historias clínicas se haga únicamente con fines médicos y por parte de profesionales médicos. Por excepción, dicha norma sólo permite el acceso a la historia clínica con fines no médicos on three assumptions:
(i) when accessed for judicial purposes, epidemiology, public health, research or teaching, after the adoption of measures to ensure patient anonymity, unless it has given its consent to such access.
(ii) if requested by a judicial authority and the patient's identification is needed to handle the process.
(iii) Where access any inspection body health, where a purpose or health care.
The AEPD understands that the requirement of the tax does not fall within any of these three scenarios. For these reasons, the AEPD concluded that physicians should refrain from providing such information unless they have the consent of the patient.
Taken from the English Agency for Data Protection.
Mutatis mutandis, in Venezuela are handled the same arguments mentioned by the English Agency for Data Protection. (See Constitution, art. 60, Code of Dental Ethics, Rules of the Law Practice of Dentistry. Monitoring Management Blog)
0 comments:
Post a Comment