"In that case it'd really suck for the hospital if they didn't have the record on file or access to another hospital that did."

Which is the current default. I don't see a huge outcry about this.

"Maybe the patient is severely allergic you're about to give him."

Also the current default. Which is why they make medalert bracelets. If you have a severe medical problem, you already have the info on you. At least if you give a damn. Problem solved.

EHR's are a solution to a problem that patients don't have. It would be great for employers, insurance companies, the government, software companies, etc. But not really for the patient (or the doctors).

> What if his in an emergency and happens not to walk with that card in the pocket?

Gee, I don't know. What do they do now?

"Medical care is full of information waivers, much like EULAs, only with your health at stake."

This is sloppily worded, but let's be clear that medical privacy is not the same thing as "your health". If someone sees my private medical records, it doesn't make me sicker. If anything, more eyeballs would tend to make me less sick, as medical errors would be more likely to be caught.

Spam being illegal certainly has curbed its proliferation - NOT !

Oh I see. You mean make it illegal to receive the records not create them. That means you have to hit extracts from, derived works from the records regardless of source. I have some serious questions about the constitutionality of laws like that. Remember you have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a law was broken.

Try and write one up that gets around all the ways the data can me modified and then sold.

Hence the need for strong laws to add to the DISincentives for hacking.

There's only so strong you can make the laws. You can make the penalty death and forfeiture of all property to the state, but if the incentives FOR it are strong enough, and the chance of getting away with it perceived to be good enough, it'll happen anyway.