Sorry, but I don't agree with the premise and the first line of your comment. Much of the rest I do agree with.
The NHS (not "the government" - which is an emotionally charged noun in this sort of circumstance) is selling the data. They are in financial difficulty, yes, but they are also responsible for broad social-health in the UK.
The NHS is in an almost unique position world-wide, in that they have access to high quality data that can dramatically improve health at an international level. They aren't, however, a research group. Companies just do research better than government departments, and finding a balanced way to improve access to the data and improve social health is critical to the NHS's future as the population ages.
This is why they are selling health data, imho.
I think there's a balance to be struck. The global and NHS specific improvements in health need to be balanced against individual privacy.
Unfortunately, the only way to do this is through "pieces of paper" (again, an emotive term).
It's also worth mentioning that many of these pieces of paper have already been in place for years, where they have been sharing hospital data. So to some degree this extends an exiting structure that is already working. It's just more emotive to many people since it involves a centralised location, and their local GPs.
I'd rather have a centralised location with oversight fighting down a multinational, than my local GP trying to manage legal contracts with them.
It's difficult to respond to your specific examples. Some are completely valid. Some are (imho) not. "Mistakes were made" and mistakes will be made in the future.
It's complicated, and it's a balancing act. Personally, I think it's the right balance.