Years ago, I commented that I could understand – and even appreciate – the use of GPS devices in helping families of Alzheimer’s patients keep their family member safe. It was one of the only exceptions I could think of to my opposition to using tracking devices on people, even though it raises important issues about privacy and consent.
Which brings me to an article in The Belfast Telegraph, a U.K. publication:
A police force in England plans to fit dementia patients with GPS tracking devices in a bid to reduce the number of costly call-outs to search for patients who regularly go missing.
Campaigners have described the scheme as “inhumane” while East Sussex council’s adult services department will launch an investigation into the tracking proposals from Sussex Police.
The tracking device can be worn around patients’ necks, clipped to belts and attached to house keys and features a button which would allow its wearer to speak to a 24-hour call centre.
Sussex Police have estimated that one-in-four of more than 300 missing persons inquiries it launched in 2011 involved a dementia patient.
It has now reportedly purchased 15 of the devices which it believes could reduce the number of missing persons searches which often involve a large amount of police manpower, and occasionally a helicopter.
“The GPS will be very cost-effective to the police,” said Chief Inspector Tanya Jones.
Read more on Belfast Telegraph.
Now this sounds potentially wrong to me. If the families and patients want the device, then having it available to them makes sense. But imposing it on patients without their or their families’ consent as a cost-saving measure would be just wrong.
OK, you reasonably argue: what if the sole argument was that the device would increase police effectiveness in finding people when they are missing – which would presumably be a benefit to the patient? Would that justify imposing it on the patients? My answer: no, not without their consent or the consent of their families if the patient is not competent to make an informed decision.
In related coverage, the Associated Press reports that the families of the patients will be paying for the devices’ monthly tracking fees. It’s not clear from the report whether families are required to enroll and pay and might face some action if they decline to or if this is purely voluntary on the families’ parts, in which case, it might indicate their agreement with the tracking. Examples cited in the AP report touch on some of the issues I’ve raised in the past about the benefits of using tracking technology with Alzheimer’s patients.
I realize my views will offend some who will feel that I’ve betrayed my core values of respect for autonomy and privacy, but seriously, if you haven’t lived through this type of situation, you may wind up spouting high-sounding principles that fall by the wayside when your relative has gone missing and you have no idea where they are or how agitated they might be because they’re lost and can’t find their way home. I’ve lived through it and wouldn’t wish that fear and anxiety on anyone.
Technology can help improve quality of life and autonomy. Remotely monitoring whether people have taken their medication – whether those medications are psychotropics or diabetes or heart medications – may help some patients live independently in less restrictive environments. Having an individual with Alzheimer’s wear a device enables you to reassure them, “Look, if you do get lost, we’ll always be able to find you,” can help the person maintain some level of independence and reduce their anxiety. It can help maintain quality of life and control. But let’s not forget that just imposing it on patients or their families without their consent is not okay, however noble your intentions might be.