Analysis of Health Care Ethics: My Health Record Debate in Australia

This report presents an analysis of a debate concerning Australia's My Health Record, focusing on the affirmative perspective. The report examines the arguments for and against mandatory participation in the digital health record system, addressing key themes such as accessibility for rural populations, technological challenges for the elderly, data security, ethical considerations in research, and the overall beneficence of the system. The analysis includes the viewpoints of various speakers, referencing the benefits of the My Health Record system, while also acknowledging the concerns surrounding data privacy, equitable access, and the potential for injustice among disadvantaged groups. The report also considers the need for ethical guidelines in healthcare research and the impact of electronic health applications on different demographic groups, ultimately exploring the complexities of implementing a national digital health record system.

Running head: HEALTH CARE ETHICS
Health Care Ethics
Name:
Institution:
Date:

HEALTH CARE ETHICS
NEGATIVE (Third Speaker )
Hello team,
Good morning mates. I am here to talk on the affirmative aspect on the topic:
Australians should opt in for my health record.
My fellow member Kristina focused on the accessibility of resources to use In My
Health Record (MHR) especially on the population that mostly lives in the rural areas.in my
affirmative take. the Australian Digital Health Agency spokesman stated that this worked
with the aboriginals and the torrent island people (Bromley, Mikesell, Jones, & Khodyakov,
2015).. The aboriginals and torrent islander’s medical organizations worked to raise
awareness on the health records and also recognize the people living in remote or rural areas
and have a limited digital literacy health records. People living in rural areas with small or
limited digital literacy will have an opportunity of participating in education to learn on the
benefits of health records. It enables them to be confident and competent users.
Kristina has focused on the Australian aging population who are disadvantaged due to
the advancement of technology and therefore have difficulty in accessing their medical health
records. I affirm that through the Australian MHR, elders in our community no matter how
challenged they are technologically can nominate a representative who will act according to
their preferences and their will. The representative can be a family member, a relative, a close
friend of the elder or even a care giver. The representative acts in accordance with the will of
the elders, and he or she is given the level of access by the elders. For elders who do not
understand English, there are multiple other languages in which the elders just need to click
and listen or read (Juth, 2015).

HEALTH CARE ETHICS
There has been considerable debates on the risks and merits of My Health Records
(MHR) ranging from the current system inefficiencies to data control and privacy issues. The
discussion has been less intended use of data and secondary purposes. A big and resourceful
database could be used to benefit the society especially the aging Australian population.
However, medical research in healthcare is carried out under ethical guidelines. In MHR, a
consent process is required to opt out or in where the research doesn’t meet the ethical
considerations of the research.
With a good MHR system, my point is that there has always been issues relating to
ethics that confront researchers, health personnel and health policy makers. My affirmative
colleagues also believe that MHR is justified as a beneficence. With my research in
affirmative, ethical principles in MHR is purported to be good and do well. I would
affirmatively say that increasing access is not increasing the health care across different
demographic groups. It has been seen that in Australia, people from the rural areas, the
aboriginals and the Torres islander people are likely to receive less benefit in MHR from
electronic health application (Pols, 2015). The electronic distributions of resources is likely to
lead to injustice and inequitable disclosure of confidential information in health of certain
disadvantaged groups like the people living in rural Australia.I would like to ask that is it fair
for Australian health system to allow access of information in MHR to only people with
internet and computer access?
In conclusion, My affirmative take is that, there are so many people in the rural areas
that have limited access to the internet or cannot afford a computer or gadgets such as
smartphones (Post, & Blustein, 2015). My research also shows that another source of
affirmative measures is the government health department websites.

HEALTH CARE ETHICS
. References
Bromley, E., Mikesell, L., Jones, F., & Khodyakov, D. (2015). From subject to participant:
Ethics and the evolving role of community in health research. American Journal of
Public Health, 105(5), 900-908.
Juth, N. (2015). Challenges for principles of need in health care. Health Care Analysis, 23(1),
73-87.
Pols, J. (2015). Towards an empirical ethics in care: Relations with technologies in health
care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 18(1), 81-90.
Post, L. F., & Blustein, J. (2015). Handbook for health care ethics committees. JHU Press.