Controversy is natural to any form of democratic government, and healthy in that context. But a distinctly unhealthy Bill from the Department of Health is failing to raise controversy in the IT media. And it concerns you personally.

It's rare for disparate interests all to unite on an issue, except perhaps in extreme circumstances such as war. However, the House of Lords last week was discussing a move by the Department of Health that is so unhealthy for you and me that it has united all medical groups against it. It's clause 67 (at the current count) of the Health and Social Care Bill.

The clause is breathtaking in its simplicity and arrogance. At a single stroke, it confers all rights on medical records to the Health Secretary. If accepted, the clause will allow the Health Secretary to release all medical details of yourself, including your identification, to anyone he/she wishes, without your permission. It will also allow the same Secretary to withhold anonymous medical records from any research body, however worthy, at his/her discretion.

Fortunately, the offending clause has not passed unnoticed in the medical world, despite its precise numbering bouncing about (it was previously 59 and 68) as amendments are made and despite its being hidden in a mass of other clauses that are far less controversial. Opposition is coming from the British Medical Association, the Patients Association arm of the Consumers Association, the Patients Forum, the Foundation for Independent Policy Research, Patient Concern and virtually every medical journal. Unfortunately, that alone may not prevent its adoption; the Government wants the Bill passed before the election and has the necessary majorities to achieve that. Greater hope of salvation lies in the Government's own Data Privacy Act and the Government's own signature to the Council of Europe recommendation no. R(97)5 on protection of medical data; both are blatantly breached by Clause 67.

Why would the Government attempt such a move? A DoH spokesperson has said that it is to stop patient information being used against patients' interests, to improve patient care and ensure that public interest is observed. Public interest, of course, is the term generally used, as in the Public Information Act (aka Ministers' Back Protection Act) to preserve government PR rather than individual interests.

However, the Government interests in this case are more than just PR, although that comes into it. The new powers would, for instance, enable the Health Secretary to withhold all statistics allowing any independent assessment at all of any health service. Alder Hey, Bristol and Harold Shipman never happened, right? Equally or more to the point is that medical records are of immense value to the pharmaceutical industry. Revenues from sale of those wouldn't by themselves fund the health service but they'd make a very useful dent in the budget required. And who could say that wasn't in the public interest?

The DoH says it sees no conflict with data privacy legislation although Data Protection Registrar Elizabeth Frances has had to admit that she hasn't been consulted. There, or in the Council of Europe, lies the best chance of thwarting this most cynical attempt to usurp the rights of individuals. By the way, in case you didn't realise, this Bill is being pursued in the name of open government. The DoH website doesn't have anything to say on the matter. But then you'd expect that from open government, wouldn't you?