1NC Solvency Safeguards Solve

Plan not key- safeguards in place

Felix 14
(Kingsley Felix, Editor of Healthable, Can You Trust Digital Medical Records,
Healthable, http://www.healthable.org/can-you-trust-digital-medical-records/,
8/28/14)/LGE
One industry that is rapidly making the switch from paper hard copy to digital is the
medical industry. Doctors, nurses and even health insurance professionals are using
digital medical records instead of individual hard copies on every single patient.
Digital Medical Records Digital medical records come with a variety of benefits. Theyre
easier to update, theyre easier to store, and they provide instantaneous access to a
patients medical history no matter where they are or which doctor they are seeing .
But although there are a variety of benefits to digital medical records, many people often wonder if digital medical

After all, with hackers making their way into everyones private
computers and accounts, its only a matter of time before your digital medical
records become public knowledge, right? It honestly depends, both on the portal
being used at your doctors office as well as your own personal use of your digital
medical records. The following are three ways to ensure you can trust digital medical records. Talk with
your doctor about their portal and its protection Every doctors office has a portal they use to
records can be trusted.

create, update, and maintain digital medical records. If you doctor has ditched paper for computers, be sure to talk

Ask questions about the provider and what steps your doctor
is using to protect these records from being hacked or penetrated by an outside
party. For example, ask your doctor what security metrics they are using to ensure the information in your file
with them about their portal.

never falls into the wrong hands, such as firewalls, encryption software, etc. And if you dont like what your doctor
has to say about their use of digital medical records, ask him what he is willing to do to make you more
comfortable, or consider changing providers. Create strong usernames and passwords Oftentimes you will be able
to access certain aspects of your medical history through an online portal. For example, your doctor may give you
access to your digital medical records through their portal, or you may have access to your medical insurance via

No matter how you can digitally access your information, be sure

to create strong usernames and passwords for all of your accounts, and dont store
passwords and usernames on your computer. Use a safe computer If you truly want to
the companys website.

protect your privacy, be sure to use a computer that only you can access. Dont sign into your medical accounts
from a shared computer at a library, and dont access this information through a computer at work. You also want to
make sure that you only access the info using a private Internet connection. Signing onto your accounts through
public WiFi also puts you at risk. If your private information is stored on public computers, it makes it easier for this

As long as you and your doctor are taking the

necessary precautions to keep your medical information safe, you will find that
digital medical records are more of a convenience than a nightmare.
information to fall into the wrong hands.

1NC UQ - Trust High

Steady support for doctor-patient trust broad trend
McCanne 10-24-14 (Don, MD, Public Trust in Physicians U.S. Medicine in
International Perspective, http://pnhp.org/blog/2014/10/24/improving-trust-in-theprofession/)

One emerging question is what role the medical profession and its leaders will play in shaping future national health care policies that affect decision making about patient care.
Research suggests that for physicians to play a substantial role in such decision making, there has to be a relatively high level of public trust in the professions views and leadership. But

an examination of U.S. public-opinion data over time and of recent comparative data on public trust in physicians as a group in 29
industrialized countries raises a note of caution about physicians potential role and influence with the
U.S. public. In a project supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health, we reviewed historical
polling data on public trust in U.S. physicians and medical leaders from 1966 through 2014 ,
as well as a 29-country survey conducted from March 2011 through April 2013 as part of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), a cross-national collaboration among
universities and independent research institutions. In 1966, nearly three fourths (73%) of Americans said they had great confidence in the leaders of the medical profession. In 2012,

trust in physicians integrity has remained high. More than two thirds
of the public (69%) rate the honesty and ethical standards of physicians as a group as very
high or high (Gallup 2013).
only 34% expressed this view. But simultaneously,

1NC No Impact Bioterror

No impact to bioterror- no means, no evidence
Youde 15
(Jeremy R., associate professor of political science and department head at the
University of Minnesota,edited by Sara E. Davies, The Politics of Surveillance and
Response to Disease Outbreaks: The New Frontier for States and Non-State Actors,
Ch. 9: Biosurveillance as Nationalk Policy: The United States National Strategy for
Biosurveillance, 2015, Pgs. 144-5) /jdi-mm
Given the intensity of focus on bioterrorism within the NSB, one may naturally think
that bioterrorist attacks are frequent and widespread . Much of the public discussion of bioterrorism
emphasizes that the danger from such attacks from the relative low-cost and ease of manufacturing such weapons (Selgelid 2007).

evidence suggests otherwise. Carus (2001) investigated 180 uses of biological

agents for terroristic or criminal purposes from the 1970s to the 1990s. Of those
180, he found that 137 were either hoaxes or threats with no evidence of any actual ability
to carry out such an attack. In another 10 cases, the perpetrators expressed an interest in
obtaining biological agents, but did not have any means to actually acquire them
(Carus 2001: 8). Kelles (2007:224) study of the 12 most plausible cases involving the use of
biological agents found that a full 25 percent were merely apocryphal. RANDs
Databse of Woldwide Terrorist Incidents includes more than 40,000 events between
1968 and 2010. Of these, a mere 13 involved biological agents. Of those 13, 9 came
from the anthrax mailings in the United States in 2001. The remaining 4from
Brazil, Kashmir, Pakistan, and Venezuelacaused one death and no other illnesses
(RAND National Defense Research Institute 2013). Taken together, this suggests that bioterrorism is either
far more costly or far more technically sophisticated than previously imagined . That is
The

not to deny the importance of preparing for any type of terrorist activity, but it does suggest the value in putting those preparations
in an appropriate context.

Privacy
Question the link of medical records to privacy, 2000 or 1500 people cant show the
entire responded queueo of the entire world

1NC No Impact Democracy

DPT FalseSecurity and Economic interests subvert
democratic trust
Downes and Lilley 2010 [Alexander B., Associate Professor of Political Science and
International Affairs at George Washington University; Mary Lauren Lilley, BA in political
science from Duke, Overt Peace, Covert War?: Covert Intervention and the Democratic
Peace, Security Studies, Volume 19, Issue 2, pages 266-306, May 28, 2010, Taylor & Francis
online, wyo-sc]

Democracies, as is now widely known, rarely if ever go to war with one another. Yet there are a number of instances in which

democracies have covertly used forceful means short of war to remove elected
governments from power, a phenomenon we label covert foreign regime change. The United States and Great Britain,
for example, engineered the downfall of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953. The United States then helped topple
Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz the following year and assisted rebels in Indonesia hoping to overthrow Sukarno in 195758.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the CIA to remove Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo, in 1960, and the United
States also played an important role in the removal of Cheddi Jagan in British Guyana and Joo Goulart in Brazil in the 1960s. Most
famously, perhaps, the Richard Nixon administration attempted to prevent the Chilean socialist Salvador Allende from taking office
in 1970 and later encouraged the Chilean military to depose him. 1 What are the implications of this practice for theories of

inter-democratic covert interventions

constitute a possible anomaly for DP (Democratic Peace). Although these commentators do not always
democratic peace (DP)? A number of scholars have suggested that

specify which theory of DP they believe is contradicted by inter-democratic covert intervention, those who do generally point to

Realist critics, such as Sebastian Rosato, argue that instances of covert regime change
among democracies suggest that democracies do not always treat each other with trust
and respect when they have a conflict of interest, thereby undermining a key plank of
norms explanations for DP. With regard to the United States, Stephen Van Evera points out that in nine of the
eleven cases in which elected nationalist or leftist regimes in the Third World have adopted
policies that disturbed Washingtonthe United States attempted to overthrow the
elected government. Van Evera concludes that American leaders have favored democracy only
when it has produced governments that support American policy . Otherwise they have
sought to subvert democracy. Similarly, Patrick James and Glenn Mitchell identify what they call the potential victims
norms arguments.

of the democratic peace: weak, isolated democracies, whichby trying to escape a situation of structural dependence on a

attacks
provide a serious challenge to the cultural premise of democratic peace; such interventions,
Rosato writes, suggest that democratic trust and respect has often been subordinated to
security and economic interests.
powerful democracythreaten the economic interests of that state.

According to James and Mitchell, Covert

1NC AT: Ableism

Reliance on the social model neglects the impacts of
impairment, assumes oppression, ignores interaction of social
and individual factors, is unhelpful in disability research and
has become politically stagnating.
Shakespeare, 2
[Tom, PhD at Cambridge, former employee of the WHO, was on the team who
produced the World Report on Disability, professor at the University of East Anglia,
with research and multiple publications, has achondroplasia, The Social Model of
Disability" The Disability Studies Reader. 4th edition, Ed. Lennard J. Davis, 2013,
216-221, //uwyo-baj]
WEAKNESSES OF THE SOCIAL MODEL

The simplicity which is the hallmark of the social model is

its fatal flaw. The social model's benefits as a slogan and political ideology are its drawbacks as an
Another problem is its authorship by a small group of
activists, the majority of whom had spinal injury or other physical
impairments and were white heterosexual men. Arguably, had UPIAS included people with
also

academic account of disability.

learning difficulties, mental health problems, or with more complex physical impairments, or more representative of

Among the
weaknesses of the social model are: 1. The neglect of impairment as an
important aspect of many disabled people's lives. Feminists Jenny Morris (1991),
Sally French (1993), and Liz Crow (1992) were pioneers in this criticism of the social
model neglect of individual experience of impairment: As individuals, most of us simply
cannot pretend with any conviction that our impairments are irrelevant because
they influence every aspect of our lives. We must find a way to integrate them into our whole
different experiences, it could not have produced such a narrow understanding of disability.

experience and identity for the sake of our physical and emotional well-being, and, subsequently, for our capacity to

The social model so strongly disowns individual

and medical approaches, that it risks implying that impairment is not a
problem. Whereas other socio-political accounts of disability have developed the important insight that people
work against Disability. (Crow, 1992, 7)

with impairments are disabled by society as well as by their bodies, the social model suggests that people are

Rather than simply opposing medicalization, it

can be interpreted as rejecting medical prevention, rehabilitation or cure
of impairment, even if this is not what either UPIAS, Finkelstein, Oliver, or Barnes intended. For individuals
disabled by society not by their bodies.

with static impairments, which do not degenerate or cause medical complications, it may be possible to regard

For those who have degenerative conditions which

may cause premature death, or any condition which involves pain and
discomfort, it is harder to ignore the negative aspects of impairment. As
disability as entirely socially created.

Simon Williams has argued, endorsement of disability solely as social oppression is really only an option, and an
erroneous one at that, for those spared the ravages of chronic illness. (Williams, 1999, 812) Carol Thomas (1999)
has tried to develop the social model to include what she calls impairment effects, in order to account for the

a relational
interpretation of the social model enables disabling aspects to be
attributed to impairment, as well as social oppression: once the term disability is
limitations and difficulties of medical conditions. Subsequently, she suggested that

ring-fenced to mean forms of oppressive social reactions visited upon people with impairments, there is no need to
deny that impairment and illness cause some restrictions of activity, or that in many situations both disability and
impairment effects interact to place limits on activity. (2004, 29)

One curious consequence of the

ingenious reformulation is that only people with impairments who face

oppression can be called disabled people. This relates to another problem.
2. The social model assumes what it needs to prove: that disabled people
are oppressed. The sex/gender distinction defines gender as a social
dimension, not as oppression. Feminists claimed that gender relations involved
oppression, but did not define gender relations as oppression. However, the social model
defines disability as oppression. In other words, the question is not whether
disabled people are oppressed in a particular situation, but only the
extent to which they are oppressed. A circularity enters into disability
research: it is logically impossible for a qualitative researcher to find
disabled people who are not oppressed. 3. The analogy with feminist
debates about sex and gender highlights another problem: the crude
distinction between impairment (medical) and disability (social). Any researcher who does
qualitative research with disabled people immediately discovers that in everyday life it is very hard
to distinguish clearly between the impact of impairment, and the impact
of social barriers (see Watson, 2002; Sherry, 2002). In practice, it is the interaction of
individual bodies and social environments which produces disability. For
example, steps only become an obstacle if someone has a mobility
impairment: each element is necessary but not sufficient for the individual
to be disabled. If a person with multiple sclerosis is depressed, how easy
is it to make a causal separation between the effect of the impairment
itself; her reaction to having an impairment; her reaction to being
oppressed and excluded on the basis of having an impairment; other,
unrelated reasons for her to be depressed? In practice, social and individual
aspects are almost inextricable in the complexity of the lived experience of
disability. Moreover, feminists have now abandoned sex/gender distinction, because it implies that sex is not
a social concept. Judith Butler (1990) and others show that what we think of as sexual difference is always viewed

Shelley Tremain (2002) has claimed similarly that the

social model treats impairments As an unsocialized and universal concept
whereas, like sex, impairment is always already social. 4.The concept of
the barrier-free utopia The idea of the enabling environment, in which all
socially imposed barriers are removed, is usually implicit rather than
explicit in social model thinking, although it does form the title of a major academic collection
through the lens of gender.

(Swain et al., 1993). Vic Finkelstein (1981) also wrote a simple parable of a village designed for wheelchair users to
illustrate the way that social model thinking turned the problem of disability on its head. Yet despite the value of
approaches such as Universal Design, the concept of a world in which people with impairments were free of

numerous parts of the natural

world will remain inaccessible to many disabled people: mountains, bogs,
beaches are almost impossible for wheelchair users to traverse, while
sunsets, birdsong, and other aspects of nature are difficult for those
lacking sight or hearing to experience. In urban settings, many barriers
can be mitigated, although historic buildings often cannot easily be
adapted. However, accommodations are sometimes incompatible because
people with different impairments may require different solutions: blind
people prefer steps and defined curbs and indented paving, while
wheelchair users need ramps, dropped curbs, and smooth surfaces.
Sometimes, people with the same impairment require different solutions:
some visually impaired people access text in Braille , others in large print,
environmental barriers is hard to operationalize. For example,

audio tape or electronic files. Practicality and resource constraints make it

unfeasible to overcome every barrier: for example, the New York subway and London
Underground systems would require huge investments to make every line and station accessible to wheelchair
users. A copyright library of five million books could never afford to provide all these texts in all the different
formats that visually impaired users might potentially require. In these situations, it seems more practical to make
other arrangements to overcome the problems: for example, Transport for London have an almost totally accessible
fleet of buses, to compensate those who cannot use the tube, while libraries increasingly have arrangements to

Moreover, physical and sensory

impairments are in many senses the easiest to accommodate. What would
it mean to create a barrier free Utopia for people with learning difficulties?
Reading and writing and other cognitive abilities are required for full
participation in many areas of contemporary life in developed nations.
What about people on the autistic spectrum, who may find social contact
difficult to cope with: a barrier free Utopia might be a place where they
did not have to meet, communicate with, or have to interpret other
people. With many solutions to the disability problem, the concept of addressing special needs seems more
coherent than the concept of the barrier free Utopia. Barrier free enclaves are possible, but
not a barrier free world. While environments and services can and should
be adapted wherever possible, there remains disadvantage associated
with having many impairments which no amount of environmental change
could entirely eliminate. People who rely on wheelchairs, or personal assistance, or other provision are
make particular books accessible on demand, given notice.

more vulnerable and have fewer choices than the majority of able-bodied people. When Michael Oliver claims that
An aeroplane is a mobility aid for non-flyers in exactly the same way as a wheelchair is a mobility aid for nonwalkers. (Oliver, 1996, 108) his suggestion is amusing and thought provoking, but cannot be taken seriously. As

It is difficult to imagine any modern industrial society

(however organised) in which, for example, a severe loss of mobility or
dexterity, or sensory impairments, would not be 'disabling' in the sense of
restricting activity to some degree. The reduction of barriers to
participation does not amount to abolishing disability as a whole. (Bury, 1997,
137) Drawing together these weaknesses, a final and important distinction
needs to be made. The disability movement has often drawn analogies with other forms of identity
Michael Bury has argued,

politics, as I have done in this chapter. ) The disability rights struggle has even been called the "Last Liberation

while disabled people do face discrimination and

prejudice, like women, gay and lesbian people, and minority ethnic communities, and while the
disability rights movement does resemble in its forms and activities many of these
other movements, there is a central and important difference. There is
nothing intrinsically problematic about being female or having a different
sexual orientation, or a different skin pigmentation or body shape. These
other experiences are about wrongful limitation of negative freedom. Remove
Movement" (Driedger, 1989). Yet

the social discrimination, and women and people of color and gay and lesbian people will be able to flourish and

But disabled people face both discrimination and intrinsic

limitations. This claim has three implications. First, even if social barriers
are removed as far as practically possible, it will remain a disadvantage to
have many forms of impairment. Second, it is harder to celebrate disability
than it is celebrate Blackness, or Gay Pride, or being a woman. "Disability
pride" is problematic because disability is difficult to recuperate as a
concept, as it refers either to limitation and incapacity, or else to
oppression and exclusion, or else to both dimensions. Third, if disabled people are to
be emancipated, then society will have to provide extra resources to meet
participate.

the needs and overcome the disadvantage which arises from impairment,
not just work to minimize discrimination (Bickenbach et al., 1999). BEYOND THE SOCIAL
MODEL? In this chapter, I have tried to offer a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the British
social model of disability. While acknowledging the benefits of the social model in launching the disability
movement, promoting a positive disability identity, and mandating civil rights legislation and barrier removal, it is

the social model has now become a barrier to further progress.

As a researcher, I find the social model unhelpful in understanding the
complex interplay of individual and environmental factors in the lives of
disabled people. In policy terms, it seems to me that the social model is a blunt instrument for explaining
and combating the social exclusion that disabled people face, and the complexity of our needs. Politically,
the social model has generated a form of identity politics which has
become inward looking and separatist. A social approach to disability is indispensable. The
medicalization of disability is inappropriate and an obstacle to effective analysis and policy. But the social
model is only one of the available options for theorizing disability. More
sophisticated and complex approaches are needed, perhaps building on the WHO
my belief that

initiative to create the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. One strength of this
approach is the recognition that the disability is a complex phenomenon, requiring different levels of analysis and

disability is not a
minority issue, affecting only those people defined as disabled people. As
Irving Zola (1989) maintained, disability is a universal experience of
humanitys.
intervention, ranging from medical to the socio-political. Another is the insight that

Universalism is wrong and bad ends up being MIRED in

reductionism.
Hughes 07 (Head of Division of Sociology Glasgow Caledonian University Bill Being disabled: towards a critical social ontology for disability
studies Disability & Society 22.7 Taylor & Francis)

the universalistic approach to ontology in disability studies that I

have sketched above is inadequate on at least three counts. Firstly, in treating the body as a
limit it fails to recognize that disabled bodies embody potential and
possibility and thus leaves unchallenged the profoundly invalidating vision
of disability that haunts the nondisabled imaginary. Secondly, it fails to treat
the body as a body subject. As a consequence of the loss of the lived
body, the materialist ontology proposed by our main protagonists as they labour to map out an
anthropology of frailty ends up mechanistic and mired in reductionism . Thirdly , in
In summary,

appealing to a universal human subject

the approach taken by

Turner and

Shakespeare and Watson annihilates disability as an identity and

conceals the discrimination and exclusion that is the ubiquitous
experience of people who embrace disability as a subject position. The
argument is Rousseauesque. We are all the same. There is no room for difference and diversity. In reflecting on this

it is our
undifferentiated concept of man that gives rise to discrimination. In my view
disability studies is best served, at least in the present conjuncture, by a critical social
ontology that focuses in the first instance on the pathologies of non
disablement (Hughes, 1999, p. 164) that regularly misrepresent and sometimes
destroy disabled peoples lives.
argument, however, perhaps we need to listen to Baudrillards (1993, p. 125) claim that

Biological reductionism turns their critiuqe

Hughes 09 (Head of Division of Sociology Glasgow Caledonian University Bill Wounded/monstrous/abject: a critique of the disabled body
in the sociological imaginary Disability & Society 24.4)

The position taken by Turner (2001) and Shakespeare and Watson (2002), in which vulnerability is universal and
frailty the fate of all, suggests, in Timpanaros (1975, 20) words, a common morality, based on the solidarity of all

The common morality derived from the essential

ontological identity of all, egalitarian though it is, seems to me to be unable to escape from the
problem of biological reductionism, a charge that is regularly levelled at the medical model of
disability. Not only does the category of disability disappear into the universal
siblinghood of our wounded lives lives inevitably tarnished by physical and mental
limitation but also the issues of exclusion, discrimination and oppression that are
associated with a disabled identity become superfluous. They can no longer be constituted as
experiences of specific political import to disabled people. If we are all fragile/wounded, ergo
disabled, then either all or none of us are oppressed, and if it is the former, then
perhaps we can be content with our poor but equal treatment. It may be good for
the soul to admit to ourselves that we are, or one day might become, the other that we
(once) despised, but such moral clarity is unlikely to improve disabled peoples standard
of living or bring down the barriers that exclude them from participation in social
and economic life. Furthermore, the appeal to vulnerability as an essence of being
human should be rejected on the grounds that it is an attempt to normalise
disability at an anthropological level by invoking the empirical universality of
impairment, where impairment finds itself thrust into a sociological limbo dominated by a presocial notion of
men [sic] in the struggle against nature.

life as limit (Hughes 2007, 679). One can appreciate that the emphasis placed on the natural limits of the body is
an attempt to ward off the crass relativism of strong forms of social constructionism, but even if one is sympathetic

there is a mistake inherent in the argument that

makes disabled people of us all. It assumes that because the body declines and
calls time on everyone, it is the perfect example of that which is beyond discourse
and represents the final moment when human matter reveals itself unambiguously
as nothing but nature. However, it is important to argue that, despite its vulnerability, the
bodys materiality is indeterminate and its limits negotiable (James and Hockey 2007).
Furthermore, the body is not just a limit. It also embodies a set of possibilities. It is clear
that the disabled body is ubiquitously represented in negative ontological terms and
its limitation and deficits dominate the literature. It is difficult to escape the representation of the
to the backlash against postmodernism,

disabled life as doomed and tragic or to avoid the melancholia that surrounds nondisabled peoples accounts of

To make disabled people of us all adds pessimism to essentialist

naturalism. Would it not be better as recent proponents of the rhizomatic potential of people with
learning disabilities have done (Goodley 2007; Braidotti 2002) to admit that all of us, disabled or
not, are bursting with possibilities and capabilities? In the universalist discourse lack haunts us
disabled peoples lives.

all. For those who embrace the tropes of monstrosity and abjection lack is a status reserved for disability.

1NC Medical Industry Bad

There should NOT be trust in the healthcare industry- results
in overtreatment, biased research, profit-seeking and fearmongering
Godlee 12
Fiona, editor in chief of the British Medical Journal, Overtreatment, over here, British Medical Journal, Vol. 345,
2012 SJE

How much of what we offer to patients is unnecessary? Worse still, how much harm do we do to individuals and
society through overtreatment? In the 30 years since Ivan Illich wrote his seminal and, at the time, shocking book
Medical Nemesis, the idea that medicine can do clinical and societal harm as well as good has become

are we doing enough to bring medicines harmful hubris under

control? The answer, in the United States at least, is no. Earlier this year, concerned individuals from a
commonplace. But

range of backgrounds met in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to explore the problem of overtreatment. As Sharon
Brownlee explains in a video on bmj.com, her starting point for concernand the inspiration for her book on

among developed nations, Americas per

capita spending was rising sharply while life expectancy was not. The problem is
complex and the list of potential contributing factors long. AsJeanne Lenzer reports(doi:10.1136/bmj.e6230),
reasons for overtreatment identified at the meeting include fear of malpractice
lawsuits, supply driven demand, knowledge gaps, biased research, profit
seeking, patient demand, financial conflicts of guideline writers, failure to fully
inform patients of the potential harms of elective treatments, and the way
American physicians are paid by a fee for service.
overtreatment in Americawas the realisation that, alone

Impact Terrorism
Biosurveillance key to solve terrorism and CBRN use
Youde 15
(Jeremy R., associate professor of political science and department head at the
University of Minnesota,edited by Sara E. Davies, The Politics of Surveillance and
Response to Disease Outbreaks: The New Frontier for States and Non-State Actors,
Ch. 9: Biosurveillance as Nationalk Policy: The United States National Strategy for
Biosurveillance, 2015, Pg. 143) /jdi-mm
After laying out the basic underpinnings of the National Strategy for Biosurveillalnce along with its guiding
principles, core functions, and enablers and calling for an implementation plan to operationalize the strategy within
120 days, the document ends by reminding the reader of the connections between biosuveillance and the United

Protecting the health and safety of the

American people through a well-integrated national biosurveillance enterprise, it
concludes, is a top national security priority (White House 2012: 8; emphasis added). While
acknowledging that natural causes could give rise to a national health emergency,
the strategy repeatedly links the need for the NSB to terrorism and the
accidental or deliberate use of CBRN weapons.
States general posture toward national security.

Biosurveillance key to solve terrorism

Youde 15
(Jeremy R., associate professor of political science and department head at the
University of Minnesota,edited by Sara E. Davies, The Politics of Surveillance and
Response to Disease Outbreaks: The New Frontier for States and Non-State Actors,
Ch. 9: Biosurveillance as Nationalk Policy: The United States National Strategy for
Biosurveillance, 2015, Pgs. 143-4) /jdi-mm
The National Strategy for Biosurveillance repeatedly links its efforts at early
detection of disease outbreaks to bioterror attacks . When the document lists the potential
sources of a health threat to the United States, it invariably leadsoff with some form of terrorist
attack before referencing the natural emergence and spread of an infectious
disease, food-borne illnesses, or plant and animal-based diseases. The fact that the
NSB draws its inspiration and operational foundation from the United States
National Security Strategy further reinforces the connection between issues of
health and the security of the state.

Impact Bioterror
Biosurveillance key to solving disease/bioterror
Margevicius et. al 14
(Kristen, Nicholas Generous, Kirsten J. Taylor-McCabe, Mac Brown, W. Brent Daniel,
Lauren Castro, Andrea Hengartner, Alina Deshpande, PLOS, Advancing a
Framework to Enable Characterization and Evaluation of Data Streams Useful for
Biosurveillance, 2014, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083730) /jdi-mm
Detecting disease outbreaks, surveillance of mass events [1], reporting public health
emergencies of international concern (PHEIC) to comply with the International Health Regulations (IHR
2005)[2], [3], and monitoring and predicting the emergence and re-emergence of
infectious disease[4] all now fall under the vast biosurveillance umbrella.
Biosurveillance systems have been implemented and are being developed to meet
these demands, among others, for the gathering and analysis of information that
can lead to actionable results at the local, state, national, and global levels for
animal, plant, and human populations [5][16]. This array of systems spans boundaries between
public health surveillance and bioterrorism surveillance, between surveillance centered on health threats and

the rubric of biosurveillance,

traditional demarcations are increasingly fading among public health, animal health,
ecological health, and biosecurity and bioterrorism defense surveillance capabilities.
The 2012 National Strategy for Biosurveillance underscores this big umbrella
approach to biosurveillance by calling for a well-integrated national biosurveillance
enterprise to detect, track, investigate, and navigate incidents affecting human,
animal, and plant health, thereby better protecting the safety, well-being, and
security of the American people[17].
surveillance centered on health protection and monitoring. Under

Plan stymies readiness for solving bioterror and security

threatsGreenspun et. al 07
(Harry, Taha-Kass-Hout, and Robert Cothran, Greenspun MD, is the chief medical
officer at Health Solutions Northrop Grumman Corporation in Chantilly, VA. TahaKass-Hout, MD, MS, is chief scientist of the Public Health Division at Northrop
Grumman in Atlanta. Robert Cothren, PhD, is the director of Clinical Information
Systems Division at Northrop Grumman, Public Safety IT, Bioterrorism,
biosurveillance, and electronic health data, 2007,
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3019) /jdimm
Many aspects of public safety have been able to harness information technology to
improve preparedness and situational awareness related to terrorism. Officials can
gather information from mass transit, financial institutions, law enforcement, and
critical infrastructure. However, a major barrier to improving bioterror surveillance
has been the lack of electronic health information. Historically, health care has
significantly lagged other industries in investment and utilization of information

technology. Evidence continues to demonstrate that use of electronic health records

(EHRs), computerized physician order entry, electronic prescribing, and other health
IT innovations results in improvements in the quality, safety, and cost of care as
compared to traditional (typically paper-based) methods. In addition, the availability
of real-time electronic health data creates new opportunities to accelerate disease
surveillance.

K2 solve Bioterror and disease

Greenspun et. al 07
(Harry, Taha-Kass-Hout, and Robert Cothran, Greenspun MD, is the chief medical
officer at Health Solutions Northrop Grumman Corporation in Chantilly, VA. TahaKass-Hout, MD, MS, is chief scientist of the Public Health Division at Northrop
Grumman in Atlanta. Robert Cothren, PhD, is the director of Clinical Information
Systems Division at Northrop Grumman, Public Safety IT, Bioterrorism,
biosurveillance, and electronic health data, 2007,
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3019) /jdimm
The progress made in biosurveillance in the U nited States is significant and should be
evolved to meet existing and emerging needs biosurveillance remains a
cornerstone in taking timely actions to reduce morbidity and mortality and
to improve health. There are existing processes, relationships, technologies, policies, infrastructures, and
advances in science and technology that provide a solid foundation to a truly integrated biosurveillance solution. Of
paramount importance is the need to strengthen the capacity and enable data-driven decision-making of public
health services from the local to the national levelboth strategically and tactically. This capacity can be expedited
through an improved integration of health-related data and indicators among clinical, public health (e.g., state and
local disease surveillance through a system of systems approach), emergency response, and veterinary and vector
control services. Further enhancement and growth of the Health Information Exchange (HIE) infrastructure will

Biosurveillance is a
collaborative effort that calls upon the scientific research and advanced
technologies, and also builds upon the common goals and needs of public and
private sectors. Several programs have arisen to tap into electronic health records for biosurveillance. One
such program from CDC is BioSense. In the first quarter of 2004, BioSense became available for use. BioSense
seeks to enhance the ability to rapidly detect and monitor bioterrorism, natural
disease outbreaks, and other events of public health importance through access to
data from health care organizations around the country, including DOD and the Department of
improve knowledgeable decision making among these responsible parties.

Veterans Affairs medical treatment facilities. In its initial stages, the CDC established direct connections with
hospitals and laboratories, pulling data in real time. The program continues to expand by connecting to more
organizations as well as exploring connections with HIEs. A second program expected to begin this fall focuses
directly on connections with HIEs to provide biosurveillance and situational awareness for the CDC and local and
state health agencies. Both programs are evaluating and implementing aspects of the American Health Information

The intent is to transmit essential ambulatory

care and emergency department visit, utilization, and lab result data from
electronically enabled health care delivery and public health systems in a
standardized and anonymized format to authorized public health agencies with less
than one day lag time. At its core is collection of the Minimum Biosurveillance Data Set (MDS), the specific
data elements required. The Department of Defense is also using electronic health
Community (or AHIC) Biosurveillance Use Case.

information for biosurveillance. With its enterprise-wide electronic health record

(AHLTA), the DOD is able to track diagnoses and even presenting symptoms.

Solves bioterror and disease

Greenspun et. al 07
(Harry, Taha-Kass-Hout, and Robert Cothran, Greenspun MD, is the chief medical
officer at Health Solutions Northrop Grumman Corporation in Chantilly, VA. TahaKass-Hout, MD, MS, is chief scientist of the Public Health Division at Northrop
Grumman in Atlanta. Robert Cothren, PhD, is the director of Clinical Information
Systems Division at Northrop Grumman, Public Safety IT, Bioterrorism,
biosurveillance, and electronic health data, 2007,
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3019) /jdimm
Health information obtained from EHRs and HIEs is one essential element of an
effective biosurveillance system. When functioning, systems operate in three surveillance
modes: monitoring, characterizing, and responding. These iterative modes are not mutually
exclusive. The primary mode of operation is monitoring (processing data before a change in health-related pattern
occurs). This mode relies on collection and evaluation of raw, consumed (e.g., alerts, briefings), and synthetic data.
This information can be shared bi-directionally among sector-specific surveillance systems (e.g., anthrax
coordination with USPS, alerts to the DHS National Biosurveillance Integration System (NBIS) system). In addition,
other novel information sources (e.g., news feeds, intelligence reports, over-the-counter sales, school and worksite
absenteeism) can further enhance early detection and potentially reduce the response cycle. This sharing of
information is supported by inter-agency agreements and existing or enhanced policies and procedures. Many

There are
currently existing channels to share biologic, food, environmental, laboratory,
animal, and immigrant information with public health agencies (e.g., EPA, FDA, USDA,
NIOSH, CDC, the state and federal laboratories, border control authorities, FEMA). During an event,
surveillance focuses on characterizing the nature of the event. This type of
surveillance, coupled with the increase adoption of EHRs and HIEs, is a more rigorous surveillance
activity and depends more on enhanced algorithms and setting alert thresholds .
agencies share key sources of raw data and summary indicators relevant to health events.

Though advances in science and technology have resulted in a large number of algorithms capable of providing
useful answers, a tremendous amount of research remains to be done. For example, researchers will need to
identify key components in a syndrome associated with a new or modified disease quickly after it emerges. This
new syndrome or change in behavior must then require a new algorithm. Once an event has been characterized as
a true threat, the biosurveillance system should provide decision support for responding and recovering. This
system should be in accordance; for example, with the FEMA National Incident Management (NIMS) guidelines and

system can provide a unified approach to incident management, a

standardized command and control structure in states of emergency, and focus on
resource allocation and integrated support at all levels.
protocols. Such a

Plan stifles ability to combat bioterror attacks

Greenspun et. al 07
(Harry, Taha-Kass-Hout, and Robert Cothran, Greenspun MD, is the chief medical
officer at Health Solutions Northrop Grumman Corporation in Chantilly, VA. TahaKass-Hout, MD, MS, is chief scientist of the Public Health Division at Northrop
Grumman in Atlanta. Robert Cothren, PhD, is the director of Clinical Information
Systems Division at Northrop Grumman, Public Safety IT, Bioterrorism,
biosurveillance, and electronic health data, 2007,

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3019) /jdimm
The growing availability of electronic health information can provide greatly
enhanced preparedness, detection, and response to bioterrorism . To
achieve this potential, several factors are required. First, adoption of EHRs must
accelerate. Unless electronic health data is available from a much larger
proportion of the population, only a very incomplete picture will be represented.
Second, this information has to be accessible in a standardized manner via
financially sustainable HIEs. The business case for biosurveillance must be clear.
Finally, further research must be done to improve the automated detection of
bioterrorism events. With the often unique characteristics of existing and emerging
bioterrorism threats, early detection and response are essential to avert
catastrophe.

1NC CP
Text: The United States Federal Government should implement
electronic consent systems and require individuals consent
prior to governmental surveillance of medical records in the
United States.
Counterplan solves entirety of case- informed consent restores
confidence in the medical industry
Consent vital to trust
Koontz 13
(Linda, Patient Privacy Rights, Information Privacy in the Evolving Healthcare
Environment, 2013, http://patientprivacyrights.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/Peel-chapter-HIMSS-book.pdf) /jdi-mm
The standard of practice for physicians has been to obtain consent before using or
disclosing health information, but effective, meaningful consent is not embedded in
current health technology systems.7 This is particularly problematic because the
right of consent is the foundation for patient trust in physicians and healthcare
systems.8 Without trust, people avoid treatment9 and hide sensitive information10
about their minds and bodies. Innovative privacy-enhancing technologies and
robust trust frameworks11 could enable exquisitely granular electronic consent,12
even down to the data field level, and put patients back in control of
personal health information. Then patients could move the right information to
the right person at the right time, and prevent health data from being sold or used
for purposes with which they do not agree. Technology can unquestionably provide
enormous benefits to the nations health, but only if we strengthen requirements
governing consent, restore patients control over their information, and build
meaningful consent and trust frameworks13 into electronic systems and data
exchanges.