Hi Bob,
An 'international awareness' must be developed in advance and evolved continuously.
The EHR community is part of the bedrock of future Healthcare policies, procedures
and practices. It must be based on facts and incorporate all available information.
The Legal community requires facts in the form of admissible evidence and information in
the form of testimony, inferences, deductions and interpretation. It renders judgments in
accordance with established law and in some cases remedies for parties before the Court.
In the presence of this certainty it makes 'big' mistakes and sometimes loses its way. As an
example, Forensic Science has upset many judgments and caused the restructuring of
many policies, procedures and practices. A complaint often heard is that Forensic
Science, and genetics in particular, has in a short time caused more change than years of
reasoned thought within the Community.
With jurisdictions releasing prisoners from Death Row for crimes they did not commit to
ineffective FDA-approved drugs, with fatal side effects, for specific conditions being
withdrawn change is 'in the air'. A recent humorous complaint from the bench comments
on juries demanding to have Forensic data and analysis prior to deliberations.
It might be that 'fact-based outcome-oriented' Healthcare is becoming popular.
"...
tickle the need for some common upper ontology for the domains of governance
which includes the process by which the legal environments are created and
maintained in various countries
...
the question of governance in standards bodies
...
..."
This is not an easy task due to the supremacy of the Administrative, Legislative and Judicial
branches of governments plus the diversity and number of governments. The following is a simple
example of how technology, science and legal processes can work in one jurisdiction.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
*IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA**
*No. 122 / 01-0653
Filed February 26, 2003
TERRY J. HARRINGTON, Appellant
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, Apellee
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/supreme/opinions/20030226/01-0653.asp
"...
Upon our review of the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude (1) Harrington’s appeal is timely; (2) this action is not time barred; (3) Harrington is entitled to relief on the basis of a due process violation; and (4) Harrington’s motion for conditional remand is moot. Accordingly, we reverse the district court judgment, and remand for entry of an order vacating Harrington’s conviction and sentence, and granting him a new trial. We deny Harrington’s motion for remand on the basis of mootness
..."
Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories
http://www.brainwavescience.com/Ruled%20Admissable.php
"...
In order to be admissible under the prevailing Daubert standard, the science utilized in a technology is evaluated based on the following four criteria: (The Iowa courts are not bound by the Daubert criteria used in the federal courts, but they do use them when determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence.)
1. Has the science been tested?
2. Has the science been peer reviewed and published?
3. Is the science accurate?
4. Is the science well accepted in the scientific community?
The judge ruled that Brain Fingerprinting testing met all four of the legal requirements for being admitted as valid scientific evidence. The ruling stated: "The test is based on a 'P300 effect.'… "The P300 effect has been studied by psycho-physiologists…The P300 effect has been recognized for nearly twenty years. The P300 effect has been subject to testing and peer review in the scientific community. The consensus in the community of psycho-physiologists is that the P300 effect is valid
..."
This example identifies one approach to modifying existing legal processes. There are close to
200 countries in the UN and each maintains significant diversity.
An approach taken within the US is based upon a set of 'Model Codes' (see the Legal Information Institute at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html ).
A recommended approach to addressing Healthcare under the Law, Legal requirements,
handling and interpretations of EHRs, and related Legal processes is to:
1)Expand the Model Codes to cover EHRs
2)Include appropriate provisions with the EHR standards to build-in compatibility with
the Model Codes
3)Include processes to handle change.
Separate Legislatures and Judicial systems reference the Model Codes now, i.e., When in
doubt look at what others have built. Since Judicial systems interpret the laws that the
Legislatures have enacted the opportunity to impact the system to achieve goals for the
common good in the shortest time lie with the Model Codes.
At least this approach can be considered foundational.
Regards!
-Thomas Clark
Bob Smith wrote:
