Argument: Chip or Not to Chip

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: RFID, Radio-frequency identification, Microchip implant
  • Pages : 5 (1775 words )
  • Download(s) : 142
  • Published : February 6, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Argument essay
Chip or Not to Chip?
In 2006, 44-year-old William Koretsky was unconsciously taken to the hospital after he was in a serious car accident. An emergency room scanner revealed an implanted Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) chip in his arm. Doctors identified and reviewed Koretsky’s health history using an online database, to learn that he had type-one diabetes. Physicians quickly began monitoring his blood sugar level while treating his injuries. According to the 2006 EMBO report, Valeria Kaplan explained how RFID chip saved Koresky’s life. Kaplan says: “The RFID, intended for human implantation, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2004 to identify patients with chronic diseases” (Kaplan). A CEJA Report “Radio Frequency ID Devices in Humans” by Robert Sade describes this device as “a chip that utilizes wireless technology to communicate data via signals in the radio frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum” (Sade). In May 2005, the Bush’s administration signed “The Real ID Act” that standardizes the new driver's licenses and state ID cards to include a magnetic strip that contains an RFID tag (H.R.418). Two months later, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, suggested in his interview with the CBS news implanting the microchips into all American citizens by 2017. Thompson announced: "It is my belief that VeriChip is an important and secure means of accessing medical records and other information” (Grand). On January 11, 2008, about two and a half years after the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the final rule to implement the national identification system created under the Act. Section V.F.5, page 110 clarifies: “Alternate technologies considered for the minimum standard included linear barcodes, contact smart-chips, optical stripe and contact-less chips” (Real). Unfortunately, government officials, who are promoting the RFID implants as safe and lifesaving are not aware of the myriad of problems associated with this disturbing and dangerous technology. There are many concerns regarding the FDA approval for the RFID human implant. While many people are under the impression that RFID is a lifesaving device, some studies prove that microchip implants have caused cancer in animals. In his article “Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors” posted in the Washington post September 8, 2007, Todd Lewan emphasizes the substantial danger to human’s body can be caused by this devise. Lewan confirms: “A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had "induced" malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats”. Moreover, a research “Tumors in Long-Term Rat Studies Associated with Microchip Animal Identification Devices” conducted by Laura E. Elcock and colleagues, uncovers the truth that “an early sacrifice of most affected animals, due to tumor size and occasional metastases.” This study explains how animals had to be destroyed because the RFID implantation caused a huge tumor that spread into all parts of the animal’s body. It is obvious this mysterious chip might be the cause for potential irreversible damage to our health and end our right to live in a free society. It is unclear whether the FDA knew about the animal studies prior to approving the use of RFID implants for medical purposes in humans. Also unclear whether any special favors were granted during the approval process, and if accurate, independent testing was done on the device prior to the approval. In addition to the health care danger associated with the RFID implants, there are also serious privacy, legal, and ethical concerns. In fact, identity related crimes may occur with this high-tech device. Enforcing human implants for identification is going to promote privacy concerns as individuals can be identified without their consent or awareness. It is hard to predict who...
tracking img