Just to clarify - my concern is outside of the implant itself; I'm concerned
about implementation.  I understand that there are cases where this
technology may be a useful tool for doctors and caregivers.

In the case of microchipping pets, owners pay a $12.50 fee to register their
pet's microchip in the AKC-CAR database.  (I'm not sure whether or not city
pounds, vets, and shelters then pay another fee to AKC-CAR to access this
database.)  If a stray, microchipped pet shows up the rescuer scans the chip
to get the unique ID, then contacts AKC-CAR to access a database with the
owner's contact information.  For more information on AKC-CAR visit:
http://www.akccar.org/

Over the years there have been many different manufacturers of chips and
scanners. This resulted in non-standardized proprietary technology with
incompatibility between scanners and chips.  Shelters are already having
problems with technological obsolescence.  Some of these problems are
detailed here: http://www.hsus.org/ace/20818

Even with the problems, it seems to be a worthwhile trade-off for owners and
pets.  (I've been volunteering at our local humane society for 2 1/2 years,
in case you're wondering why I pay attention to this stuff.)

I'm interested in the way this will be implemented for humans.  I'm worried
about having vital records in one company's proprietary database and
providers being forced to pay this one company to access that information.
These fees, along with the implant and registration fees, will be passed
down to the consumer. The fee for microchipping pets may be nominal. I'm
sure there is less overhead microchipping pets than there would be in the
case of medical records because there are not the same privacy and security
concerns, however.

If it's implemented so that one company owns the medical records database
(I'm not sure the system could work any other way) this organization could
demand very high fees for access to this information.  Such fees, along with
the implant and registration fees, would definitely be passed down to
patients.

Another possible implementation method is to have the database "owned" by
the government instead of by a company.  I'm sure many of you can imagine
the security and privacy concerns that come along with that.

Until the technology is proven, standardized, and provided inexpensively to
consumers I'm not sure that I would personally opt for a chip.  As in the
case of microchipping pets, however, I hope that we can find ways around
these issues to help those populations of patients and caregivers who could
benefit from such a service.

Alicia Mallory

(Of course, these opinions are my own and don't represent those of my
employer, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.)

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance