Who should be allowed access to your medical records?

[Vanni Fucci]

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.

For all of those examples, a medic-alert bracelet can save the day...that's a personal choice that one has to make regarding concerns for their own health over protection of their privacy...

 

[bobnoorduyn]

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.

The reasons for which you want medical history and the reasons for which an employer or government wants a medical history are diametrically opposed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

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.

Oh I did quite enjoy that!

I learned something new, such as that manditory disclosure of medical history as a condition of employment would in all likelyhood fail to satisfy stages 1 and 4 of the Oakes test and consequently Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not be invoked to overturn privacy rights or Section 15 rights against discrimination.

This link explains the Oakes Test a little better than the one you provided:

http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/gd_sec_201011_e.pdf

I also learned that the issue has never been brought before any Supreme Court Justice to decide, at least I was not able to find a ruling on it.

I'd say that 99% of the examples of the invocation of the Oakes Test that I read involved prevention of a criminal act. A couple involved upholding the manditory retirement age for both military personnel and airline pilots. Not one case that I read, and I read hundreds, used the Oakes Test to overturn a Charter Right with regard to privacy during job interview process, or even touched on the subject of doctor/patient confidentiality and disclosure of medical history where it wasn't to prevent commission of a criminal act.

The ball's back in your court, troll...

Here's a good place to start:

CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute

With regard to the question of insurance companies having a right to access medical history, the only case I found of an insurance company successfully litigated the issue was one where the medical history was that of someone who was already dead.

CanLII - 1999 CanLII 637 (SCC)

I'm still looking though...I'll get back to ya!

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Ooops...wrong link there, and I can't edit it now...I'll find the one pertaining to the insurance policy...

Here it is...

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...a/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii85/1992canlii85.html

I don't think anybody should be allowed to see your medical records without your permission.

I totally agree with that, what I'm attempting to demonstrate is that there should never be a reason that you should have to give permission under duress, ie. that you won't get the job due to non disclosure of medical history

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.

Correct

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?

I have nothing against physical or psychological screening for candidates, or even periodic testing to ensure someone is still fit for duty, what I object to is someone having to give up their privacy rights in order to get a job...or insurance, as the case seems to be...

 

[taxslave]

For all of those examples, a medic-alert bracelet can save the day...that's a personal choice that one has to make regarding concerns for their own health over protection of their privacy...

Medic alert bracelets are ok in an office environment. Not so good with working people. Especially outdoors where there is no first aid room to go to.

 

[Niflmir]

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.

I can't get behind this.

First off, it is debatable whether any drug should be illegal in the first place, but let us leave that alone. The real crux here is that it has absolutely zero bearing on my job if I decide to go off and snort coke in my free time. Sure, if I am snorting coke at work, that is an issue, but the typical cocaine user is much like the typical drinker: partaking only in their free time.

Drug testing tells you absolutely nothing about your employee's ability to do their job.

World Health Organization global Cocaine Project Study suppressed by the United States for 13 years, 1995 - WikiLeaks

Correct
I have nothing against physical or psychological screening for candidates, or even periodic testing to ensure someone is still fit for duty, what I object to is someone having to give up their privacy rights in order to get a job...or insurance, as the case seems to be...

Well, I am pretty big fan of privacy. I also seem to be one of few people that believe that active testing to accomplish specific goals is always better than some generalization.

 

[CDNBear]

Oh I did quite enjoy that!

I learned something new, such as that manditory disclosure of medical history as a condition of employment would in all likelyhood fail to satisfy stages 1 and 4 of the Oakes test and consequently Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not be invoked to overturn privacy rights or Section 15 rights against discrimination.

That's awesome. You should do something about that!

This link explains the Oakes Test a little better than the one you provided:

http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/gd_sec_201011_e.pdf

I know what the Oaks Test is. The link I provided was regarding Section 15, interpretations and case law. I suggested you look up the Oakes Test, to educate yourself about reasoning.

I see I should have been far more explanatory.

I also learned that the issue has never been brought before any Supreme Court Justice to decide, at least I was not able to find a ruling on it.

Take one on, go gettem big guy. Good luck.

I'd say that 99% of the examples of the invocation of the Oakes Test that I read involved prevention of a criminal act. A couple involved upholding the manditory retirement age for both military personnel and airline pilots. Not one case that I read, and I read hundreds, used the Oakes Test to overturn a Charter Right with regard to privacy during job interview process, or even touched on the subject of doctor/patient confidentiality and disclosure of medical history where it wasn't to prevent commission of a criminal act.

Hundreds? In that short time? You're the bomb!!!

The ball's back in your court, troll...

I already proved you wrong, what more do you want?

Here's a good place to start:

CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute

You could have just asked me for that link. I have it bookmarked.

With regard to the question of insurance companies having a right to access medical history, the only case I found of an insurance company successfully litigated the issue was one where the medical history was that of someone who was already dead.

Keep digging you shinning star you.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...2canlii85.html

What does that have to do with your fallacious claim? Did you read it? I bet you skimmed it and missed somethings. Because some of the things you missed, support Ten Penny's comment.

I'm still looking though...I'll get back to ya!

No doubt.

Well, I am pretty big fan of privacy.

So am I. But I can understand the need to have access to a persons private records, where their position may put them in a position, that that may affect.

 

[petros]

I know a cop with his Fed weed licence.

 

[CDNBear]

I know a cop with his Fed weed licence.

Cool. I know a Cop that fed weed to his dog.

 

[petros]

What was the dog's name? Lucky?

 

[CDNBear]

What was the dog's name? Lucky?

Berkley.

 

[petros]

Berkley.

Sounds californiaesque. Damn hippy cops anyway.

 

[gerryh]

I can't get behind this.

First off, it is debatable whether any drug should be illegal in the first place, but let us leave that alone. The real crux here is that it has absolutely zero bearing on my job if I decide to go off and snort coke in my free time. Sure, if I am snorting coke at work, that is an issue, but the typical cocaine user is much like the typical drinker: partaking only in their free time.

Drug testing tells you absolutely nothing about your employee's ability to do their job.

World Health Organization global Cocaine Project Study suppressed by the United States for 13 years, 1995 - WikiLeaks


Well, I am pretty big fan of privacy. I also seem to be one of few people that believe that active testing to accomplish specific goals is always better than some generalization.

define "free time".... is your unpaid lunch hour "free time"? What about coffee breaks?

 

[CDNBear]

Sounds californiaesque. Damn hippy cops anyway.

His wifes alma mater. Yes, she's a hippy. With a degree in pharmacology I believe, lol.

 

[petros]

Too funny.

 

[CDNBear]

define "free time".... is your unpaid lunch hour "free time"? What about coffee breaks?

I'm not to sure I'd like to be pulled over by a Cop, or rely on a VFF, coming down off a night of rails and shots, either.

 

[gerryh]

I had a kid... many moons ago..... that worked for me. He let everyone know, on his first day, that he was heading to the bar for a beer and sandwich for lunch. I informed him that "I" had zero tolerance for alcohol during the work day. He informed me it was on HIS time and he would drink a beer or 2 if he wanted. I let him know that obviously this wasn't the company for him and not to bother coming back after his liquid lunch. BTW, this was a machine shop that I was running.

I find any of my employees drinking or using drugs during the work day their ass is grass.

 

[JLM]

I had a kid... many moons ago..... that worked for me. He let everyone know, on his first day, that he was heading to the bar for a beer and sandwich for lunch. I informed him that "I" had zero tolerance for alcohol during the work day. He informed me it was on HIS time and he would drink a beer or 2 if he wanted. I let him know that obviously this wasn't the company for him and not to bother coming back after his liquid lunch. BTW, this was a machine shop that I was running.
I find any of my employees drinking or using drugs during the work day their ass is grass.

Good for you, Gerry, I had A$$holes like that too. (I see I have a little glitch here, when someone gives a green thumb, my icon icon disappears), hence no green thumb from me Ger. :lol:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

That's awesome. You should do something about that!
I know what the Oaks Test is. The link I provided was regarding Section 15, interpretations and case law. I suggested you look up the Oakes Test, to educate yourself about reasoning.

Reasoning? Oakes is a blunt tool, badly worded and far too ambigous for the gravity of it's intended purpose...how's that for reasoning?

Regardless though, the matter of expediency over privacy where proper and conscise testing is sufficient would fail the Oakes Test...

I see I should have been far more explanatory.

It's perfectly fine that you aren't...

Take one on, go gettem big guy. Good luck.

I have no cause to...I'm merely arguing an academic point here...haven't you been following?

Hundreds? In that short time? You're the bomb!!!

All while monitoring network operations in 3 provinces...some people are better than others at multi-tasking...

I already proved you wrong, what more do you want?

Actually, to be clear I proved myself wrong, and admitted it, but then by that metric, I've also proven you wrong, because you listed truckers, firefighters and police as examples of jobs that would require medical history for consideration of candidacy, but provided no evidence to back that claim up...I've checked fire and police in 3 major cities across Canada and none of them require applicants to provide medical history...

You could have just asked me for that link. I have it bookmarked.

I would expect nothing less than that from a troll...

Keep digging you shinning star you.

It's spelled shining...spell checker is your friend

What does that have to do with your fallacious claim? Did you read it? I bet you skimmed it and missed somethings. Because some of the things you missed, support Ten Penny's comment.

I never disputed that records can be subpoenaed as part of a litigation. I also never disputed that once a waiver to the right of non-disclosure has been signed that it is binding, for ever!

What I disputed was the constitutionality of being forced to waive those rights in order to obtain a service, in this case insurance...

So am I. But I can understand the need to have access to a persons private records, where their position may put them in a position, that that may affect.

I'll bet Vic Toews give you a hard on too...

 

[JLM]

Anyone who would potentially be in a position to help me should I suddenly collapse or suffer a life threatening injury. What could happen should my medical records (a little high blood pressure) fall into the "wrong" hands?