Who should be allowed access to your medical records?

[Vanni Fucci]

In another thread, I started up this discussion, and I decided to move it to it's own thread, because it had nothing to do with the thread it was started in, and I find it rather interesting.

It's not nearly as clear cut as I had thought, or as cut and dried as my opponents in that debate had asserted.

Initially I took the position that no employer had rights to ask for or collect your personal medical information. It turns out that's not entirely true, as the Canadian Armed Forces, in addition to extensive physical testing, require medical history of recruits , apparently in contravention of Charter Rights regarding discrimination based upon mental or physical disability. I did read somewhere a somewhat vague statement that there was special legislation enacted to allow the Armed Forces to collect medical history of recruits, but haven't been able to find the specific Act.

I checked several police recruitment sites, and fire departments, and that's the only organization I was able to find that required disclosure of medical history as a condition of employment.

Calgary's fire department had a 9 page document detailing disqualfying medical conditions, but there was no part of the interview process where a candidate was required to provide medical history. That's what physical fitness and medical examinations are for:

Canadian Employment Law Today Article - Quebec police officer fired after failing to disclose full medical history provided by gerry told the tale of a police officer who was fired because she failed to disclose prior mental health issues. After going on extended sick leave for PTSD, and prior to her return to work she submitted to a psychological assessment which determined that her condition was far more severe than she indicated on her entry questionnaire.

My question is,should that question have been on the questionnaire in the first place, or did it violate her privacy rights by asking specific medical questions without just cause?

http://www.fmc-law.com/upload/en/publications/2010/0610_Employee_Personal_Medical_Information.pdf

There you have it, fill yer boots then

Oh, and Tenpenny, I'll address the insurance issue in a bit...

 

[TenPenny]

The part that you seem to miss is that part of the examination is generally a review of your medical history.

Do you agree that a depressed suicidal man should be flying a 777?

 

[SLM]

The part that you seem to miss is that part of the examination is generally a review of your medical history.

Do you agree that a depressed suicidal man should be flying a 777?

I'd say that's a bad idea.

I'd even go so far as to say that perhaps we shouldn't let someone at risk of a major coronary take that position as well. Or someone prone to seizures. Etc.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

The part that you seem to miss is that part of the examination is generally a review of your medical history.

Do you agree that a depressed suicidal man should be flying a 777?

That's why there's medical and psychological screening, conducted by the employer prior to hiring...not snooping into a person's private information...

I'd say that's a bad idea.

I'd even go so far as to say that perhaps we shouldn't let someone at risk of a major coronary take that position as well. Or someone prone to seizures. Etc.

I would say that someone at risk of a coronary would not do very well during physical examination...and seizures can be tested for as well...

 

[SLM]

I would say that someone at risk of a coronary would not do very well during physical examination...and seizures can be tested for as well...

Well of course it can, but then there's the whole muddled history of issue.

Look if you're talking about applying for a cashier job at the local supermarket, then there's no justifiable reason to be poking into someone's medical history. But some jobs do require one to be in care and control of the lives and well being of others. It's not unreasonable, in those types of situations, to request and require full disclosure of pertinent medical history.

In my opinion.

 

[Liberalman]

If the potential employee is not fit to work and gets injured or others are injured because of the employee, lawsuits will fly and big money would get awarded because the hiring compony did not do their due diligence prior to hiring.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Those who have access to your medical records should only be those who you allow such access. Some jobs require disclosure during the recruitment process, such as policing, fire fighting, piloting, military, CSIS and such. Here you have a choice, either tell them to stuff it and go look for employment elsewhere, or submit. That is not to say that they should be able to demand access for arbitrary reasons either, any records should be relelvant to the employment sought. As well, such access shouldn't be granted to HR hacks, this should only be allowed to a company doctor, who would be bound by privacy laws and would not disclose such data to disinterested parties, plus they are most likely to be able to understand what is in medical files.

Once a person is hired and gone through any probationary period, the game changes. Any request for medical records that has not been agreed to beforehand should only be done by court order. Otherwise employers would be given free reign to go on witch hunts. Certain jobs require ongoing medical assessments, doctors who do these assessments have access to medical records, but again, who they are able to disclose the content of these records to is limited. If a supervisor or HR hack found out an employee was treated for a mental illness there is nothing stopping them from either blabbing about it or making an uneducated assessment calling for dismissal, (other than the obvious legal repercussions, but such people aren't that bright to look that far ahead, by then the employee's career is in tatters). I've seen it done. I know several people who have been depressed, suicidal, or have gone through a 12 step program, who do fly big airplanes, carry firearms for employment, carry babies out of burning buildings etc. It is the assessment of the medical professionals that determines if these folks are fit for duty. A mid level manager is not equipped to make such decisions, and the only medical records that they should have access to is that which is given specifically to them by such medical professionals.

 

[taxslave]

Tough question. And like you said, not cut & dried. Want to add in criminal record checks to the discussion since in many jobs they are closely related?

 

[bill barilko]

If the potential employee is not fit to work and gets injured or others are injured because of the employee, lawsuits will fly and big money would get awarded because the hiring compony did not do their due diligence prior to hiring.

Ummm..... No.

Big Bucks are not awarded in this country.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Tough question. And like you said, not cut & dried. Want to add in criminal record checks to the discussion since in many jobs they are closely related?

Criminal record checks are fairly straight forward and there is usually no risk of a subjective interpretation by ill qualified mangement types. I've read my own when I needed it for volunteering for cadets. It gets sticky when credit checks are required. Those too are at risk of subjectivity in interpretation. Not only that, when you submit to background checks you really don't know what they are going to dig into and who else will know about it. Imagine my surprise when applying for a loan that noted on my credit history was an investigation by CSIS. I had to explain that this was necessary for security clearance, which I had been granted, but a lender, or any other disinterested party doesn't really need to know that because it conjours up all kinds of James Bond types of thoughts.

 

[Niflmir]

I don't think anybody should be allowed to see your medical records without your permission. Projecting past behavior onto the future is just lazy reasoning. Just because someone once had a mental breakdown shouldn't stop them from being considered sane today.

Now a medical examination for certain work, on the other hand, is pertinent, but absolutely useless if it is not ongoing. For instance, it is a well known fact that pilots need to undergo eye testing and have perfect vision. It is not so well known that they will never be tested again in their career (at least in France, from what I am told). In that case, why test in the first place?

 

[darkbeaver]

Access should be very restricted.

 

[CDNBear]

In another thread, I started up this discussion, and I decided to move it to it's own thread, because it had nothing to do with the thread it was started in, and I find it rather interesting.

You didn't start up a discussion, you said...

Emphatic NO...it does not depend at all on the career...

NO employer has any right whatsoever of even asking for you medical records, much less forcing you to provide them...

The notion is ridiculous...

It's not nearly as clear cut as I had thought, or as cut and dried as my opponents in that debate had asserted.

It most certainly is as clear cut as I said it was.

It turns out that's not entirely true, as the Canadian Armed Forces, in addition to extensive physical testing, require medical history of recruits , apparently in contravention of Charter Rights regarding discrimination based upon mental or physical disability. I did read somewhere a somewhat vague statement that there was special legislation enacted to allow the Armed Forces to collect medical history of recruits, but haven't been able to find the specific Act.

I checked several police recruitment sites, and fire departments, and that's the only organization I was able to find that required disclosure of medical history as a condition of employment.

I accept your apology.

My question is,should that question have been on the questionnaire in the first place, or did it violate her privacy rights by asking specific medical questions without just cause?

Of course it should be on the questionnaire, of course your physical and mental health records are pertinent to a career in the Army, Policing, or Fire Services.

http://www.fmc-law.com/upload/en/publications/2010/0610_Employee_Personal_Medical_Information.pdf

There you have it, fill yer boots then

Are you trying to compare hiring practices of the industrial sector to that of the Armed Forces, Police or Fire Services?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

If the potential employee is not fit to work and gets injured or others are injured because of the employee, lawsuits will fly and big money would get awarded because the hiring compony did not do their due diligence prior to hiring.

Again, which is why there's screening...if the companies are unwilling to take the steps necessary, without violating privacy, to ensure their employees are fit for duty, then they assume that risk...

Tough question. And like you said, not cut & dried. Want to add in criminal record checks to the discussion since in many jobs they are closely related?

Criminal record checks are a similar issue, but not the same, as there is no presumption of privaledge, unless it discloses private discussion between the client and the lawyer, which it certainly should not...

 

[CDNBear]

Interesting.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Wow...trolling already Bear...we just got started on this...

It most certainly is as clear cut as I said it was.

Umm...no it's not...there are several laws that have to be at least bent, if not completely broken for an employer to ask you any medical information during the hiring process...

I accept your apology.

Well it wasn't so much an apology, as I have nothing to apologize for...it was in fact an admission that I was at least partly wrong in my statements...big difference, but from your comment above, it would be clear that the subtleties are beyond your comprehension...

Of course it should be on the questionnaire, of course your physical and mental health records are pertinent to a career in the Army, Policing, or Fire Services.
Are you trying to compare hiring practices of the industrial sector to that of the Armed Forces, Police or Fire Services?

Again...if they are not able to properly screen applicants, with physical and psychological examinations, what right do they really have to deny employment for non-disclosure of private information? How is that not construed as a clear violation of Section 15 Charter Rights?

 

[CDNBear]

Wow...trolling already Bear...we just got started on this...

What can I say, I love poking ideologues in the eye. Sometimes they need a little bait.

Umm...no it's not...

Ummm, yes it is. You've already been wrong across the board so far. Why stop now.

Well it wasn't so much an apology, as I have nothing to apologize for...it was in fact an admission that I was at least partly wrong in my statements...

Partly?

Emphatic NO...it does not depend at all on the career...

NO employer has any right whatsoever of even asking for you medical records, much less forcing you to provide them...

The notion is ridiculous...

Nah, you were just wrong.

big difference, but from your comment above, it would be clear that the subtleties are beyond your comprehension...

Ya, ya, there must be a comprehension issue, because you jammed both feet in your mouth, Please go on. I won't mind feeding you your own post where you confirmed exactly what I said.

Again...if they are not able to properly screen applicants, with physical and psychological examinations, what right do they really have to deny employment for non-disclosure of private information?

Simply because it's pertinent to the job. As the link Gh posted, points out.

How is that not construed as a clear violation of Section 15 Charter Rights?

Remember when I said...pages from Canada, Oaks Test?

One of the first things to come up is...

Charter Equality Rights: Interpretation of Section 15 in Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (BP-402E)

Enjoy.

 

[damngrumpy]

I think there are issues of public interest and safety is some cases, like employment
where the public is directly impacted. Firemen, police, airline pilots come to mind.
In addition I think heavy equipment operators working in municipalities or on public roads
should be checked on for drug abuse or mental stability.
while we are at it , why not know about Teachers, Doctors, and others.

If someone is mentally unstable the supervisors in a workplace should know we have too
many cases of where people go off their rocker and shoot people. It is becoming an important
part of hiring. I won't hire someone who is drunk half the time, in fact I fired an in law for that
very reason.
People who use illegal drugs, should have to provide drug test results in my view as well.
Charter of rights be damned, if these people are working in areas that endanger the public, they
should not be there. If someone is abusing drugs or booze why should an employer have them on
the job? If they get hurt and they are under the influence work safe is called and who's responsible
the employer that's who. If someone does not want to provide medical details then they don't
want the job. By the same token, I don't think genuine medical problems should be an issue.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I think there are issues of public interest and safety is some cases, like employment
where the public is directly impacted. Firemen, police, airline pilots come to mind.
In addition I think heavy equipment operators working in municipalities or on public roads
should be checked on for drug abuse or mental stability.
while we are at it , why not know about Teachers, Doctors, and others.

This is part of the reason I don't agree with having to give unfettered access to medical records; yours is a typically emotional response to the issue, the same emotional reaction that made Congress overrule the US Supreme Court on the issue of random testing, (which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional). Basically, "if it is in the interest of safety, screw everybody's rights, we have to make them prove their innocence". Emotionally inspired legislation makes for bad legislation.

It does actually have a negative effect; people close ranks, they keep quiet and suffer in silence rather than seek help. I know of very few people who have not needed professional help at some point in their lives, making them disclose that arbitrarily and with consequenses makes it all the more likely they will remain suffering in silence, until of course, they snap.

If someone is mentally unstable the supervisors in a workplace should know we have too
many cases of where people go off their rocker and shoot people. It is becoming an important
part of hiring.

The problem is; how do you know? A person who has no medical history of mental illness has obviously never been treated for such. A person with a history of mental illness who has been deemed fit by a medical professional has obviously sought treatment. It is almost always the one who you never expected who goes postal.

People who use illegal drugs, should have to provide drug test results in my view as well.
Charter of rights be damned, if these people are working in areas that endanger the public, they
should not be there. If someone is abusing drugs or booze why should an employer have them on
the job? If they get hurt and they are under the influence work safe is called and who's responsible
the employer that's who. If someone does not want to provide medical details then they don't
want the job. By the same token, I don't think genuine medical problems should be an issue.

This is different because they are already guilty and have to prove themselves. Again, I work with folks who are on the 12 step program, they could have been sacked, but are still productive employees, (some are actually over productive, compensating for past wrongs I guess). I think we have to get past the WW1 mindset where we shot soldiers for suffering PTSD, sorry, shell shock, but it was still inexcusable at the time.

 

[taxslave]

I'll add one for work almost anywhere. As the first aid attendant it is important that I am aware of medical problems that employees may have as it just may save their life. The main ones being heart conditions requiring nitro, diabetes and allergies like bee stings.