Should AI Have Access to Your Medical Records? What if It Can Save Many Lives?

We’re constantly told that one of the potentially biggest benefits of artificial intelligence is in the area of health. By collecting large amounts of data, AI can create all sorts of drugs for diseases that have been resistant to treatment.

But the price of that could be that we have to share more of our medical information. After all, researchers can’t collect large amounts of data if people aren’t willing to part with that data.

We wanted to see where our readers stand on the balance of privacy versus public-health gains as part of our series on ethical dilemmas created by the advent of AI.

Here are the questions we posed…

AI may be able to discover new medical treatments if it can scan large volumes of health records. Should our personal health records be made available for this purpose, if it has the potential to improve or save millions of lives? How would we guard privacy in that case?

…and some of the answers we received. undefined

Rely on nonpartisan overseers

While my own recent experience with a data breach highlights the importance of robust data security, I recognise the potential for AI to revolutionise healthcare. To ensure privacy, I would be more comfortable if an independent, nonpartisan body—overseen by medical professionals, data-security experts, and citizen representatives—managed a secure database.

Anonymity cuts both ways

Yes. Simply sanitise the health records of any identifying information, which is quite doable. Although there is an argument to be made that AI may discover something that an individual needs or wants to know.

Executive-level oversight

I think we can make AI scanning of health records available with strict privacy controls. Create an AI-CEO position at medical facilities with extreme vetting of that individual before hiring them.

Well worth it

This actually sounds like a very GOOD use of AI. There are several methods for anonymising data which would allow for studies over massive cross-sections of the population without compromising individuals’ privacy. The AI would just be doing the same things meta-studies do now, only faster and maybe better.

Human touch

My concern is that the next generations of doctors will rely more heavily, maybe exclusively, on AI and lose the ability or even the desire to respect the art of medicine which demands one-on-one interaction with a patient for discussion and examination (already a dying skill).

Postmortem

People should be able to sign over rights to their complete “anonymised” health record upon death just as they can sign over rights to their organs. Waiting for death for such access does temporarily slow down the pace of such research, but ultimately will make the research better. Data sets will be more complete, too. Before signing over such rights, however, a person would have to be fully informed on how their relatives’ privacy may also be affected.

Pay me or make it free for all

As long as this is open-source and free, they can use my records. I have a problem with people using my data to make a profit without compensation.

Privacy above all

As a free society, we value freedoms and privacy, often over greater utilitarian benefits that could come. AI does not get any greater right to infringe on that liberty than anything else does.

Opt-in only

You should be able to opt in and choose a plan that protects your privacy.

Privacy doesn’t exist anyway

If it is decided to extend human lives indefinitely, then by all means, scan all health records. As for privacy, there is no such thing. All databases, once established, will eventually, if not immediately, be accessed or hacked by both the good and bad guys.

The data’s already out there

I think it should be made available. We already sign our rights for information over to large insurance companies. Making health records in the aggregate available for helping AI spot potential ways to improve medical care makes sense to me.

Overarching benefit

Of course they should be made available. Privacy is no serious concern when the benefits are so huge for so many.

Compensation for breakthroughs

We should be given the choice to release our records and compensated if our particular genome creates a pathway to treatment and medications.

Too risky

I like the idea of improving healthcare by accessing health records. However, as great as that potential is, the risks outweigh it. Access to the information would not be controlled. Too many would see personal opportunity in it for personal gain.

Nothing personal

The personal info should never be available to anyone who is not specifically authorised by the patient to have it. Medical information can be used to deny people employment or licenses!

No guarantee, but go ahead

This should be allowed on an anonymous basis, without question. But how to provide that anonymity?

Anonymously isolating the information is probably easy, but that information probably contains enough information to identify you if someone had access to the data and was strongly motivated. So the answer lies in restricting access to the raw data to trusted individuals.

Take my records, please

As a person with multiple medical conditions taking 28 medications a day, I highly endorse the use of my records. It is an area where I have found AI particularly valuable. With no medical educational background, I find it very helpful when AI describes in layman’s terms both my conditions and medications. In one instance, while interpreting a CT scan, AI noted a growth on my kidney that looked suspiciously like cancer and had not been disclosed to me by any of the four doctors examining the chart.

Italian fine wines are gaining momentum among Australian collectors and drinkers, with new data from showing a surge in interest driven by value, versatility and a new generation of producers.

Long dominated by France, the premium wine conversation is beginning to shift, with Italy increasingly positioned as a compelling alternative for both drinking and collecting.

According to Langtons, the category is benefiting from a combination of factors, including its breadth of styles, strong food affinity and more accessible price points compared to traditional European benchmarks.

“Italy has always offered fine wine fans an incredible range of wines with finesse, nuance, expression of terroir, ageability, rarity, and heritage,” said Langtons General Manager Tamara Grischy.

“There’s no doubt the Italian wine category is gaining momentum in 2026… While the French have long dominated the fine wine space in Australia, we’re seeing Italy become a strong contender as the go-to for both drinking and collecting.”

The shift is being reinforced by changing consumer preferences, with Langtons reporting increased demand for indigenous Italian varieties and lighter, food-first styles such as Nerello Mascalese from Etna and modern Chianti Classico.

This aligns with the broader rise of Mediterranean-style dining in Australia, where wines are expected to complement a wider range of dishes rather than dominate them.

Langtons buyer Zach Nelson said the category’s versatility is central to its appeal.

“Italian wines often have a distinct, savoury edge making them an ideal pairing for a variety of cuisines,” he said.

The move towards Italian wines also comes as prices for traditional French regions continue to climb, particularly in Burgundy, prompting collectors to look elsewhere for value without compromising on quality.

Italy’s key regions, including Piedmont and Etna, are increasingly seen as offering that balance, with premium wines available at comparatively accessible price points.

Nelson said value is now a defining factor for buyers in 2026.

“Value is the key driver for Australian fine wine consumers… Italian wines are offering exactly that at an impressive array of price points to suit any budget,” he said.

The category is also proving attractive for newer collectors, offering what Langtons describes as “accessible prestige” and a more open entry point compared to the exclusivity often associated with Bordeaux.

Wines such as Brunello di Montalcino and Nebbiolo-based expressions are increasingly being positioned as entry points into cellar-worthy collections, combining ageability with relative affordability.

At the same time, a new generation of Italian producers is reshaping the category, moving away from heavier, oak-driven styles towards wines that emphasise site expression and vibrancy.

“There’s definitely a ‘new guard’ of Italian winemaking… stripping away the makeup… to let the raw, vibrating energy of the site speak,” Nelson said.

Langtons is also expanding its offering in the category, including exclusive access to wines from family-owned producer Boroli, alongside a broader selection spanning Piedmont, Veneto, Sicily and Tuscany.

The company will showcase the category further at its upcoming Italian Collection Masterclass and Tasting in Sydney, featuring more than 50 wines from 23 producers across four key regions.

For collectors and drinkers alike, the message is clear: Italy may have been overlooked, but it is no longer under the radar.