During a high-speed chase last May in Teaneck, New Jersey, police sergeant William Koretsky slammed his car into a utility pole and seriously injured himself. An ambulance rushed the officer to Hackensack University Medical Center, where he became
the first patient ever admitted with a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag implanted in his arm. A doctor immediately scanned the microchip, revealing an identity code that gave physicians instant access to Koretsky’s medical records. Advocates of RFID technology praise this incident as a health care success, but others worry about the loss of personal privacy. “The fear is that the wrong people, such as your boss, your insurer, or maybe police agencies will get information about you,” says Arthur Caplan, director of the
Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
HOW RFID WORKS
The technology that helped save Sgt. Koretsky’s life was developed two decades ago as an alternative to bar coding, a cumbersome and expensive inventory control system. Bar coding requires clerks to optically scan information stamped on individual items. Unlike bar codes—which are still widespread—RFID smart tags use radio waves to identify and locate objects. Typically, a remote “reader” communicates with a microchip “tag” embedded in an item. The reader sends a radio signal, which the tag answers by sending its information.
RFID REVOLUTIONIZES LIFE
The RFID revolution not only improves
business efficiency, but also promises to
make daily life more convenient, safe, and
healthy. Consider these examples:
Automobiles equipped with RFID tags pay
tolls electronically as they speed through toll
booths; RFID tags in employee identification
cards control access to high-security
restricted areas; and sensitive medical
equipment tagged with RFID chips send
reminders when crucial maintenance is due.
HUMAN
IMPLANTS
Although many
RFID functions offer benefits to consumers,
some raise ethical concerns; and none raise
more concerns than implanting RFID tags in
humans. Supporters claim implants will save
lives. “Many deaths occur because people
aren’t able to communicate their medical
information or because of wrong
information,” says Scott Silverman, leader of
a company that makes RFID tags.
Opponents of human implants argue that
the potential for abuse, such as tracking
employees’ whereabouts or discovering their
private medical conditions, outweighs the
medical benefits; after all, patients can
already wear medical alert bracelets.
“Once the technology is available,” says
Katherine Albrecht, a consumer rights
activist, “it raises the possibility that people
in a position to demand implants will begin
to demand them.” A discussion of ethical
principles central to the RFID debate
overflows with conflicts: national security vs.
personal privacy (Can airlines or other
essential industries require RFID implants in
employees?);
sanctity of life vs. human dignity
(Can loved ones require RFID implants in
Alzheimer patients?).
THE JEWISH VIEW
Our sages cherished privacy; in fact, Jewish
law cautions against even gazing into private
property (Baba Batra 2b). And yet,
communal responsibility often trumps
personal needs (see Pirkei Avot 2:4). For
example, to avoid eclipsing communal joy,
shivah (the seven-day period of personal
mourning) ends during Jewish festivals.
Furthermore, because human beings are
created in God’s image, Judaism values
human dignity. Our tradition explains that
dignity takes precedence over any rabbinic
law (a law not in the Torah but deduced by
our sages). And yet, to preserve life, Jews are
permitted to violate all but three prohibitions:
murder, incest, and idolatry.
