The Internet is changing how people receive health information and health care. All who use the Internet for health-related purposes must join together to create an environment of trusted relationships to assure high quality information and services; protect privacy; and enhance the value of the Internet for both consumers and providers of health information, products, and services. The goal of the e-Health Code of Ethics is to ensure that people worldwide can confidently and with full understanding of known risks realise the potential of the Internet in managing their own health and the health of those in their care. The final e-Health Code of Ethics, presented in this paper, has been prepared as a result of the "e-Health Ethics Summit," which convened in Washington DC on 31 January 2000 - 2 February 2000. The summit, organized by the Internet Healthcare Coalition and hosted by the World Health Organisation/Pan-American Health Organisation (WHO/PAHO), was attended by a panel of about 50 invited experts from all over the world and produced the foundation for a draft code, which was released 18 February [1] for an online public consultation period which ended on 14 April 2000. The final Washington e-Health Code of Ethics sets forth guiding principles under eight main headings: candor; honesty; quality; informed consent; privacy; professionalism in online health care; responsible partnering; and accountability.Note: Abstract, keywords, acknowledgements and references have been added by the editor and are not part of the final Code.

No abstract

As health care moves from paper to electronic data collection, providing easier access and dissemination of health information, the development of guiding privacy, confidentiality, and security principles is necessary to help balance the protection of patients' privacy interests against appropriate information access. A comparative review and analysis was done, based on a compilation of privacy, confidentiality, and security principles from many sources. Principles derived from ten identified sources were compared with each of the compiled principles to assess support level, uniformity, and inconsistencies. Of 28 compiled principles, 23 were supported by at least 50 percent of the sources. Technology could address at least 12 of the principles. Notable consistencies among the principles could provide a basis for consensus for further legislative and organizational work. It is imperative that all participants in our health care system work actively toward a viable resolution of this information privacy debate.

This paper's objectives are: • To clarify the concepts of "shortage" and "low production" in the context of scientists and engineers • To suggest answers to the questions in the paper's title • To point toward strategies for addressing science and engineering (S&E) workforce shortages. WHAT WOULD A "SHORTAGE" OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS LOOK LIKE? Over the last half-century, numerous alarms have sounded about looming shortages of scientists and engineers in the United States. What is meant by "shortage" has not always been clear. Further, the population under discussion, the scientists and engineers themselves, has not always shared the perspective of those sounding the alarm. Regardless, the implications of a shortage of skills critical to U.S. growth, competitiveness, and security are significant. So are the implications of the continuing low entry of female and minority students into many S&E fields. These implications justify closer examination of the nature and sources of the over-or underproduction of scientists and engineers. Improved understanding of the definition and nature of the problem can point toward relevant data and useful questions. As a starting point, consider the different circumstances in which the production of any good or service, new S&E PhDs being one, might be called "low": 1. If production is lower than in the recent past (steel is a recent example) 2. If competitors' share of total production is growing (electronic component manufacturing, shoe manufacture, and oil production are increasingly foreign) 3. If production is lower than what the people doing the producing would like (automobiles) 4. If less is produced than the nation is deemed to need (well-trained K-12 teachers) 5. If production is not meeting market demand, as indicated by a rising price (nurses, Washington, DC, area housing).

The Internet is changing how people receive health information and health care. All who use the Internet for health-related purposes must join together to create an environment of trusted relationships to assure high quality information and services; protect privacy; and enhance the value of the Internet for both consumers and providers of health information, products, and services. The goal of the "e-Health Code of Ethics" is to ensure that all people worldwide can confidently, and without risk, realize the full benefits of the Internet to improve their health. The draft code, presented in this paper, has been prepared as a result of the "eHealth Ethics Summit," which convened in Washington DC on 31 January 2000 - 2 February 2000, organized by the Internet Healthcare Coalition and hosted by the World Health Organisation/Pan-American Health Organisation (WHO/PAHO), and attended by a panel of about 50 invited experts from all over the world. It sets forth guiding principles under five main headings: candor and trustworthiness; quality; informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality; best commercial practices; and best practices for provision of health care on the Internet by health care professionals.