Sam Heard wrote:
>Tom > >This is not necessary or appropriate - as Matthew has said - placenta is >both! > don't see a problem. If observatios are being made from the placenta to determine the health / viability of the foetus, then these are added to the record of the foetus. Why not? > It is important that our solution allows information about another >person to be in an EHR - family history is a good example. We will not link >between peoples EHRs - ever in my opinion. > THis would be done in the demographic service - not in the EHR. It's just a family relationship link. - t > > >Cheers, Sam > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Thomas Beale [mailto:thomas at deepthought.com.au] >> >>I think that the only systematic approach is to make a new EHR for each >>genetically distinct individual. This means making an EHR for a foetus >>as soon as anything at all is to be measured about it, and also storing >>the link of this EHR to that of the mother. If the foetus dies in utero >>or is aborted, then its EHR shows this properly as "death" jsut as it >>would be shown in a normal person's record. As for situations where the >>individual's DNA distinctness is not totally clear like the bone marro >>transplant situation, I don't think that is a problem. Observations can >>be made on genetically different material to the patient, in the >>patient's record, as long as these observations relate to the care of >>that patient. E.g. blood tests, other tests made to a sibling for the >>sole purpose of doing a transplant into the patient - should probably go >>into the patient's EHR... >> >>But I do think we need to forget the idea that because a foetus is not >>really a person, it is not a possible subject of an EHR. I think we have >>to work on genetic distinction and distinct organism (whether called >>"human" or not) instead. >> >> - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
