The Silent Observer, the innovative software that is supposed to have helped stem the menace of sex-selective abortions at Kolhapur, violates the right to privacy.
The Silent Observer, the innovative software that is supposed to have helped stem the menace of sex-selective abortions at Kolhapur, violates the right to privacy, said Dr Sanjiv Mani, the joint secretary of Maharashtra State Branch of Indian Radiology and Imaging Association (MSBIRIA).
“We are absolutely against female foeticide. But this method, which is nothing more than a video recording, is not going to help. The problem is the issue of privacy. Imagine a case where a celebrity, or an industrialist held ransom by a third party with their private information,” asked Dr Mani.
Apart from sonography in cases of pregnant women, it is used for other reasons too. “If a man is impotent, would he like the information being leaked out. Besides, no consent is taken from the patient. In Kolhpur, images of the scans of lakhs of patients have been stored with the government,” said Dr Mani. He added that the under section 72 of Information Technology Act, there is a penalty of two years imprisonment for breach of privacy and confidentiality.
Dr Mani further asserted that the Silent observer is “primitive technology” which can be fiddled around easily. “I feel that an innocent doctor who does not reveal the sex of the child, but records each scan, can be framed. The other doctor who ensures that the scan is not recorded and reveals the sex of the child can go scot-free. The system is not fool proof,” said Dr Mani.
“Where is the question of secrecy when it’s mandatory to maintain form F under the PCNDT Act? Only authorities like the collector, municipal commissioner, or the civil doctor will be authorised to check this data. They will only tally the scans that reflected in form F (pregnancy related), not others,” explained Deshmukh.
Deshmukh added that this move had made for “public good”. “In the US, there was huge hue and cry for registration of sexual offenders. But the supreme court upheld it saying it was for the larger public good,” said Deshmukh.
The response from the non-governmental agencies working in the field is lukewarm. Dr AL Sharda, the programme director of Population First, said, “This system may have some consequence in cases of under reporting of the scans by the radiologists. But it’s not a very efficient system. We feel that the government should instead insist on proper recording of these scans and ensure registrations of the ultrasound machines.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}