The notion of ownership is inadequate for health information.
For instance, no one has an absolute right to destroy health information.
All stakeholder groups have a complex series of rights and responsibilities relating to health information that should never be trivialized into ownership.
Raising the question of ownership at all is a hash argument.
Certain bad arguments work the same way - skim online debates between biologists and earnest ID (Intelligent Design) aficionados armed with talking points if you want a few examples: The talking point on one side is just complex enough that it's both intelligible - even somewhat intuitive - to the layman and sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight .
Ownership is a poor starting point for health data because the concept itself doesn't map well to the people and organizations that have relationships with that data Ergo, neither a patient nor a doctor nor the programmer has an "ownership" relationship with patient data.
Ironically, it is neither the patient nor the provider (when I say "provider," this usually means a doctor) who is closest to "owning" the data.
The programmer has the most complete access and the only role with the ability to avoid rules that are enforced automatically by electronic health record (EHR) software.
The real issue is: "What rights do patients have regarding healthcare data that refers to them?"
Automated Summary from: O’Reilly Radar