The present thesis presents an informed by ethnography research that seeks to explore the privacy concerns and security risks that individuals perceive with regards to the electronic system of handling digital prescriptions. The research takes place in Athens, Greece and the participants are professionals who use daily the e-prescription platform and citizens whose data is being gathered and accessed. The paradiagm within which the research is unfolded is the interpretive one and a methodology of flexible design is followed. Thematic analysis of concepts produced by the data gathered is followed in order to offer an understanding of the concerns that the participants perceive. The methods that were used were interviews with professionals, focus groups with groups of citizens, individual interviews with citizens, observations and thinking aloud in pharmacies. The aim of the thesis is to illuminate those concerns with the aspiration that it be used as a basis for further research on the important issue of privacy of sensitive, medical data and suggest ways that could help ameliorate the identified concerns.

Le système juridique français accorde une grande importance aux droits du patient, essentiellement à travers la loi du 4 mars 2002. Ce texte a été construit de manière à placer le patient au centre du dispositif et à lui attribuer des droits liés à sa qualité de sujet de droit. Cette idée est quasiment absente dans la législation tunisienne. En Tunisie, la législation relative aux droits des patients est insuffisante. Il est vrai que le législateur tunisien a défini certains droits pour le patient. Cependant, ces consécrations législatives ne nous permettent pas de confirmer l’idée selon laquelle le patient est le centre de la relation médicale, particulièrement parce que le paternalisme médical trouve encore une consécration en Tunisie. L’étude comparative a montré certaines convergences entre les deux systèmes juridiques mais aussi d’importantes divergences. Ainsi, pour un pays, comme la Tunisie, dont le système sanitaire confronte des difficultés intenses non seulement sur le plan infra-structurel mais également législatif, le code de la santé publique en général et la loi du 4 mars 2002 pour les droits des malades, en particulier, peuvent constituer une source efficace pour des changements en profondeur. Cependant, si en France la loi du 4 mars 2002 occupe une place primordiale dans le corpus des règles du droit de la santé, on ne peut nier que les droits du patient confrontent aujourd’hui des difficultés de mise en œuvre. En effet, même si le souci du législateur français était de protéger au maximum les droits des patients, certaines failles restent à signaler / The french legal system attaches great importance to patient rights, mainly through the law of 4 March 2002. This text was constructed to place the patient at the center of the device and assigning the rights to as a subject of law. This idea is almost absent in tunisian law. In Tunisia, legislation on the rights of patients is inadequate : the rights of patients are devoted so scattered in several legal texts. It is true that the tunisian legislature has defined certain rights for patients. However, these legislative consecrations do not allow us to confirm the idea that the patient is the center of the medical relationship, particularly because medical paternalism still finds consecration in Tunisia. The comparative study showed some convergence between the two legal systems but also important differences. Thus, for a country like Tunisia, whose health system confronts severe difficulties not only its infrastructure but also the legislative, the code of public health in general and the law of 4 March 2002 for the rights of patients, particular, can be an effective source for in-depth changes. However, if in France the Law of 4 March 2002 occupies a prominent place in the corpus of rules of health law, there is no denying that the patient's rights today facing implementation difficulties. Even if the concern of the french parliament was to maximally protect the rights of patients, some flaws still to report