Refusing to use non-GPL software in medicine is a great idea. Also not using ANY fossil fuels is a great idea. But just because you cannot ride your bike, everywhere, does not let one off the hook regarding environmental responsibility. You still have a moral duty to reduce your use of oil. The reasons are clear, oil enables all kinds of abuses, its not good for the environment, and finally its going to run out someday. If you cannot stop using oil, it still helps to reduce your dependence.
Similarly, if you cannot realistically refuse to use GPL or FOSS medical software, one should still try to loosen the grip of proprietary medical software generally. Here is a list of things to try.
- For your next HL7 project, use Mirth. Its really good and its FOSS
- IF you must buy a proprietary EHR system, then fund a FOSS EHR anyways.
- Pick your battles, do not try to get GNU/Linux on the desktop, instead use a FOSS EHR through Windows.
- Refuse to use optional proprietary services, like HealthVault. Make it clear, publicly, that you are doing this because of the license.
- Be patient with us. FOSS activist, like me, are trying to create compelling GPL and FOSS alternatives. If you can... wait for it.
Please contact me through
FredTrotter.com if you have more ideas about how to use moral compromises to move the GPL Medical Software movement forward.
Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 04:06 PM
Digg This
AcerMed has officially given up the ghost. AcerMed clients received this fax. 
(I have removed the personal contact information of the employees to protect the innocent. If you have trouble reading this, right click on the fax and choose "view image". I had to shrink it to make it fit...)
letting them know that their vendor has gone out of business. The intrepid Robert Gleeman managed to get an interview with AcerMed's president Richard Yonis. According to Yonis, AcerMed was sunk through a double whammy, a "failure of the legal system"( a lawsuit brought by Medinformatix) and a poorly timed bout of poor health for the CTO of AcerMed.
As I suspected, it seems the AcerMed people were not dishonest. They claim they did not steal copyrighted code. Personally I think this indicates just how easily a company can be destroyed by a lawsuit gone badly. While there is a tremendous amount of venom being directed towards AcerMed, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The important thing to note here is what did NOT matter. The AcerMed people seemed decent enough: did not matter. AcerMed was CCHIT certified: did not matter. AcerMed was recommended in the industry press and by industry experts: did not matter.
Companies get sued, people get sick. When will the medical community wake up to the fact that proprietary medical software is incompatible with medicine, incompatible with free thought and dangerous to patient data? First Dr. Notes now AcerMed: is it time to wake up?
-FT
Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 03:28 AM
Digg This
|
|
|
AcerMed is a CCHIT Certified proprietary Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) vendor that is member in good standing of EHRVA, the industry's proprietary-only vendor association. The group just received a #1 ranking from the AC Group; an organization that helps medical practices to choose EHRs.
AcerMed has also apparently closed its doors.
Posted on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 12:27 PM
Digg This
|
|
VistA has its problems. I am pretty often frustrated with WorldVistA an organization that has great intentions who moves too slowly for my preference. Not to mention the companies that I regularly harass for trying to proprietarize VistA.
And those are just the problems within the community. As for the technology, VistA has no installer to speak of, it is written in an obscure (tho-powerful) language, and its documentation is largely out of data and inscrutable.
Despite these problems VistA is clearly the most powerful and feature complete hospital EHR available. While I welcome intelligent and informed debate on VistA I am frustrated by FUD that is typified by this comment to Modern Healthcare by Marlon Williams titled Antiquated system slowing EHR transformation. Which, from what I can tell, makes the argument that VistA should be abandoned because its "old". Thankfully Modern Healthcare has also published my reply VistA: You say 'antiquated' I say 'proven' Since Modern Healthcare links tend to fade over time, I have included both the original comment and my response after the gap, for posterity.
-FT
Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 01:18 PM
Digg This
|
|
|
Several people have criticized me for admitting that I was wrong, there is some confusion as to what, exactly I was admitting I was wrong about. So first, some clarification. I was wrong when I predicted an underwhelming release.
Medsphere has betrayed the community, this has not changed. When Eric Raymond and I were trying to negotiate peace between the Medsphere and the Shreeves, I asked for two things from Medsphere.
- Release all of the code you yanked from Sourceforge, under the same license.
- Stop suing the Shreeves for releasing the software
Since that time, Medsphere has continued to pursue the Shreeves. So I have added another item to my list of requests.
- Pay the Shreeves legal expenses
Medsphere has released two of the three original components on sourceforge. They changed the license on one two a bastardized FOSS license commonly referred to as "bannerware". As a result they are exactly 2/9ths of the way to reconciling the relationship with the community.
To get me to shut-up, Medsphere will need to do all three of the things that I have asked for. Because, while I may be wrong sometimes, I am usually right (and never in doubt!)
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 08:43 PM
Digg This
|
|
I was wrong. I thought that Medsphere would make an "underwhelming" release. Instead they have made a very significant release. This important software is a CPRS replacement that runs under GNU/Linux. (CPRS only runs on natively on Windows). This is a very important development and may mark an important turning point for Medsphere. Still while I am certain that this is a significant event, I am not sure exactly what this release means; I have written some initial thoughts after the gap. In any case, I never would have predicted that this is what Medsphere would do!
Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 01:04 AM
Digg This
|
|
|
One of Ken Kizers recent statements indicates that Medsphere is planning a "release" soon. It would be madness for them to release the same code that they are suing the Shreeves for releasing so here is what I think will happen.
Medsphere will release a version of "VistA" under an open source license. The license will probably not be the GPL, since that would mean that they might later have trouble interfacing that code with proprietary modules they might release. Medspheres “release” will be at least 90% standard VistA. Medsphere will take something that is public domain and put it under a FOSS license and say "See, we are open source!!". They will point to minor improvements (or merely changes) and say, “see we have contributed to the community!” However when a real VistA mumpster takes a look at the release, they will be underwhelmed.
I am writing this now for two reasons. 1. Even I can not resist a good "I told you so!" and 2. to warn Medsphere that this will not work. The community you are trying to fool is made up of smart people. What they, and I, want is a reversal of direction. Anything less than a reversal remains a betrayal but puts salt in the wound. It implies that you think we, as a group, can be bought off. If you try to get some headlines from a "release" and it is bogus, I promise that I will pursue even bigger headlines saying.... "This is bogus".
-FT
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 01:07 PM
Digg This
|
|
|
|
|
Medsphere claims to be the "leading provider of open source software to the healthcare industry". However, Medsphere has sued the company founders Scott and Steve Shreeve because they released the companies code on SourceForge. The lawsuit states that release of the code came as an unwelcome and startling surprise to Dr. Kizer(the CEO of Medsphere)... and all of the Board members.
I have evidence that the basis for the lawsuit is false. In fact Ken Kizer was informed that the Shreeves intended to make the release on sourceforge, months before the Shreeves did so. I had hoped to avoid going public with this, and instead to convince MedSphere to drop the lawsuit and re-release the sourcecode. However, these attempts have failed. After the gap, you can find the full account of MedSpheres betrayal of the Shreeves and the Free and Open Source software community.
Fred Trotter
Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 01:05 PM
Digg This
|
|
Purpose
This site exists to promote software using the General Public License in the medical software arena. This site is especially concerned with medical practice management software, hospital management software, and electronic health records (or electronic medical records)
This bias is intentional. Medical Practice Management Software and electronic medical records (EHR) impact modern health care providers and patients on a continual basis. If good software is going to make a difference for everyone in medicine, this is where to start.
Wherever possible this site will avoid the terms free practice management system or open source practice management system, along with open source EHR, etc etc... This terms are confusing to anyone who does not understand the Open Source vs. Free Software debate. Since this site is aimed at medical personnel and not at technologists the site will strictly discuss only the Gnu General Public License (GPL).
Eventually this site will also list where you can get GPL electronic health records and GPL practice management systems. Eventually it will also host reviews of different packages.
Medsphere Poll
Free Website Poll
Free Web Poll
Free Online Survey
Free Website Poll