Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:49:03.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Implanting inequality: Empirical evidence of social and ethical risks of implantable radio-frequency identification (RFID) devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2010

Torin Monahan
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Jill A. Fisher
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess empirically the social and ethical risks associated with implantable radio-frequency identification (RFID) devices.

Methods: Qualitative research included observational studies in twenty-three U.S. hospitals that have implemented new patient identification systems and eighty semi-structured interviews about the social and ethical implications of new patient identification systems, including RFID implants.

Results: The study identified three primary social and ethical risks associated with RFID implants: (i) unfair prioritization of patients based on their participation in the system, (ii) diminished trust of patients by care providers, and (iii) endangerment of patients who misunderstand the capabilities of the systems.

Conclusions: RFID implants may aggravate inequalities in access to care without any clear health benefits. This research underscores the importance of critically evaluating new healthcare technologies from the perspective of both normative ethics and empirical ethics.

Type
ASSESSMENTS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Albrecht, K, McIntyre, L. The spychips threat: Why Christians should resist RFID and electronic surveillance. Nashville, TN: Nelson Current; 2006.Google Scholar
2. Borfitz, D. Make your practice more profitable. Med Econ. 2001;78:106, 109110, 114-116.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Clarke, S. Future technologies, dystopic futures and the precautionary principle. Ethics Inf Technol. 2005;7:121126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Crooker, K, Baldwin, D, Chalasani, S. RFID technology as sustaining or disruptive innovation: Applications in the healthcare industry. Eur J Sci Res. 2009;37:160178.Google Scholar
5. Fisher, JA. Procedural misconceptions and informed consent: Insights from empirical research on the clinical trials industry. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2006;16:251268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Foster, KR, Jaeger, J. Ethical implications of implantable radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags in humans. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8:4448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Gadzheva, M. Getting chipped: To ban or not to ban. Inf Commun Technol Law. 2007;16:217231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Gilliom, J. Overseers of the poor: Surveillance, resistance, and the limits of privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2001.Google Scholar
9. Glasser, DJ, Goodman, KW, Einspruch, NG. Chips, tags, scanners: Ethical challenges for radio frequency identification. Ethics Inf Technol. 2007;9:101109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Gray, BH. The profit motive and patient care: The changing accountability of doctors and hospitals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
11. Kleinke, JD. Bleeding edge: The business of health care in the new century. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; 1998.Google Scholar
12. Laurant, C, Farrall, K. RFID Workshop Comment P049106. FTC Workshop on Radio Frequency Identification: Applications and Implications for Consumers. 2004.Google Scholar
13. Levine, M, Adida, B, Mandl, K, Kohane, I, Halamka, J. What are the benefits and risks of fitting patients with radiofrequency identification devices. PLoS Med. 2007;4:17091711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Lockton, V, Rosenberg, RS. RFID: The next serious threat to privacy. Ethics Inf Technol. 2005;7:221231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Lyon, D. Surveillance studies: An overview. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2007.Google Scholar
16. Michael, K, Michael, MG. Predicting the socioethical implications of implanting people with microchips. PerAda Magazine. 2009. http://www.perada-magazine.eu/view.php?article=1598-2009-04-02 (accessed September 1, 2010).Google Scholar
17. Michael, K, Michael, MG. The diffusion of RFID implants for access control and ePayments: Case study on Baja Beach club in Barcelona. Proc IEEE Int Symp Technol Soc (ISTAS10). 2010:242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Monahan, T, Wall, T. Somatic surveillance: Corporeal control through information networks. Surveill Soc. 2007;4:154173.Google Scholar
19. Niemeijer, A, Hertogh, C. Implantable tags: Don't close the door for aunt millie! Am J Bioeth. 2008;8:5052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Pham, HH, Devers, KJ, May, JH, Berenson, R. Financial pressures spur physician entrepreneurialism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:7081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Sade, RM. Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: Radio frequency ID devices in humans. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2007.Google Scholar
22. Swedberg, C. VeriChip markets its implantable RFID tags and services direct to consumers. RFID Journal. 2008.Google Scholar
23. Tang, PC, Ash, JS, Bates, DW, Overhage, JM, Sands, DZ. Personal health records: Definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2006;13:121126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Van Der Togt, R, van Lieshout, EJ, Hensbroek, R, et al. Electromagnetic interference from radio frequency identification inducing potentially hazardous incidents in critical care medical equipment. JAMA. 2008;299:28842890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. VeriMed. Intro to VeriMed: FAQ. 2008. http://www.verimedinfo.com/faq.asp (accessed March 14, 2009).Google Scholar