That's asking a bit too much JLM... In fact, I'm pretty sure that there's a right that provides a person with complete immunity from assuming any form of personal responsibility
Who should be allowed access to your medical records?
- Thread starter Vanni Fucci
- Start date
An employer basically has a single right with regards to applicants, the right not to hire. How exactly is that being infringed?
The minute they decide to place a public advertisement for an open position, they become regulated by the government in exchange for their access to the labour market. It is not because they have decided to hire that they can expose applicants to anything their whims desire. I don't get to ask all female applicants to strip naked just because I am the one doing the hiring and if they don't like it, tough.
Now, you might think that asking for medical history is quite reasonable, and plenty of people agree, but arguing that not allowing it would infringe an employer's rights is... I don't know what it is, but it doesn't make much sense to me.
The crux here is that in order to actually hire someone, the employer wants to be sure that the person is medically capable of the work. However, the medical history logically doesn't provide any information about that fact while a medical exam does provide the information.
In fact, I could imagine an employer being sued for not hiring someone based on the contents of their medical history (let's say manic-depression) when they have a statement from their doctor saying they are all cured.
This is from the Armed Forces web site...
You will first be required to complete a questionnaire on your medical history. This questionnaire covers such things as past and current illnesses, and any prescribed medication that you may use or have used, including type of medication and dosage. You should be prepared to answer these types of questions when you arrive for your medical. Following this, your height and weight will be measured and your visual acuteness, colour perception and hearing will be evaluated. A urine sample will also be required during this stage.
There seems to be a list of medications, that if taken past the age of 16. Can impede your ability to enlist.
Further down the same page, we find the disclaimer...
Following this review, a description of limitations (if any) will be noted and you will be assigned an appropriate and approved medical category. Applicants will not be medically disqualified on the basis of a diagnosis or disease, but only because of medical limitations affecting employment.
I'm sure the same or similar disclaimer is used by Police Services that use a similar process.
Further down we find...
Following the physical examination, you may be required to submit additional medical reports from your family physician or specialist. In these cases you will be given a form containing the necessary instructions and questions to be addressed by the appropriate physician. Any costs associated with providing these reports are your responsibility, as it is your obligation to prove that you are medically fit for enrolment and military training. You should make every effort to ensure that any required additional reports are provided to our medical staff as quickly as possible, as any delay will slow down the processing of your application and could result in missed employment and training opportunities
Last edited:
I'm pretty healthy so I mostly don't really care who gets the info. I would challenge ICBC if they wanted it, though. IMO, their only concern should be the state of someone's health at the time of insuring.
Well, this seems to support the idea that the medical history is useless. As they are looking for a diagnosis of a medical limitation, not a history of one. Probably they use the history to aid the examination, but in that case, I don't know why you couldn't hand it off directly to the doctor.
Anyways, I seem to be the unreasonable one in all of this, with my stubborn view on privacy. I just think that if they can achieve the same thing with an examination, then you would only ever need to discuss medical issues with medical professionals.
For the most part yes, but one exception I can think of is an epileptic can appear healthy at any time.
I agree. Current medical status is vastly more informative than history (except to doctors).
So they can always explain that they have epilepsy without people snooping into their medical history. If they lie they can take their chances like anyone else who lies about stuff.
In the case of the Army, that is exactly who you hand it off to. An Army Doctor.
Not even in the remotest sense. I'm all for privacy, but accept that there are situations where it has to be breached, to ensure public safety, or proper functionality in a system like the military.
It isn't unreasonable to forward your position as you have. Hell without opposition in line with yours, it's not hard to figure that the system would likely be heavy handed and quite invasive.
Again, in the case of the Army, that is who you are dealing with. I would imagine it's the same with Police Services or Fire Fighting Services.
I'm not sure why they have a list of medication that when taken past a certain age, makes a big difference. Especially since, to get to the medical portion of the process, you have to pass the aptitude test. But they do. I'm sure those medications wouldn't show up in an exam, several years after the fact.
I guess you have to resort to personal attacks, to hide your medical that would clearly show that you were castrated in some backwood clinic in British Columbia.
Nothing like hypothetical personal attacks to hide the fact that you were castrated in some backwood clinic in Btritish Columbia.
medical history, that cas
Being suggested that they hire on a 'blind' basis.
If the employer has to assume any responsibility relative to the employee (read:WCB), they need to have the right to obtain any/all pertinent and related knowledge in advance.
Yep, Bear, it is indeed he. Sorry Yukon Jack, but I had to do this to be sure! Welcome back. :smile:
Which is what I"ve been saying in this entire thread...
...and as I said, the probability that both you and your son would be found unfit for duty without producing these additional medical reports from your physician and therefore the both of you being required to produce said additional medical records is a bit of a stretch...so therefore I believe that you are being dishonest about your claim that the both of you had to do this...
No, just calling you a liar...
That is what this discussion has always been about, again, why can't you follow that?
The position you've taken from the start is that Canadian Armed Forces require medical history, or are you saying the Canadian Armed Forces is not an employer, are police forces and fire departments not employed by the city who are then considered their employers?
How about here...
No it hasn't...not by a long shot...you posted a link to the Oakes Test and have been trolling with bullshiit ever since...
No it's not...
Only in your own mind it would seem...
I don't need to include you in this discussion at all, I'm merely doing so because I find you mildly amusing, you've added nothing to the discussion, but tollblustering bullshiit, because I am right about this, and you are not...
Your continued lies are really not helping you make your case...
With a court order, and a Charter challenge maybe...
Oh? So you don't know? You've been yapping about it like you did know...look into it and I think you'll find that you are in fact wrong...again.
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/screen.pdf
Nothing there about requiring an application to disclose PIPA or PIPEDA protected information...
Last edited:
No it isn't. You're still trying to prove me wrong, after you admitted I was right, but please do go on.
It's hilarious to watch.
That's an erroneous assumption, based solely on your poor perception skills and personal biases. As I pointed out before, when you fell back on fallacy and attempted insult, regard my having legal links bookmarked. You completely ignore the fact that it is not at all unlikely that two people from the same family group, would have to forward further medical history to an Armed Forces medical examiner. Off the top of my head, I can think of three medical conditions listed on the questionnaire, that would most definitely fall under the heading hereditary.
But again, only a reasoned individual, with the ability of critical thought would consider such things.
That would obviously exclude you.
I know that's what you're trying to convey.
Yet you claimed to be ex Armed Forces personnel, and yet as you searched to find things to support your previously determined conclusion, you were forced to admit...
If you were a Soldier as you claimed, wouldn't you already know that, as I did?
Is there any question as to why I find you incredibly funny?
I'm not sure why you ask me that, since you have been generalizing the term employer (Even forwarding a hiring platform for industry as support). While I have been quite specific about which ones I was referring to.
If you want to discuss specific employers, say so. If you want to be general and vague, to look right, as you have been doing, please continue, I don't mind. It's funny to watch.
LOL, I asked a question. I didn't say they had to. You're quite funny.
Yes it, has.
I didn't post a link to the Oakes test, I posted a link to the SCC interpretation of Section 15.
The rest has been me playing with a moron, and your bullsh!t.
LOL, yes it is.
You admitted I was right, at the beginning of this thread, lol.
Your inconsistency is hilarious. Your OP here proves me right. But I can understand your fragility. You aren't the only member I poke in the eye that has a fragile ego.
Well that was weak. But not surprising.
Nope. I see you conveniently ignored the bulk of the quotes I gleaned from the Armed Forces recruitment page.
I realize you are just grasping at straws now, but when I say I imagine, to someone like Niflmir, or any of the other reasonable people here in the course of a discussion, it isn't because I'm imagining things, like you. It's because I'm trying to ease the fact into their thoughts.
I'm not surprised you don't grasp that, there seems to be so much you don't understand and dishonestly ignore.
Here, lets try a little exercise...
I imagine I have bookmarked, two links, that support my contention that both Fire and Police services have similar medical history requirements as the Armed Forces do.
Furthermore, I imagine I have a link to the MTO form for medical history requirements for operating a tractor trailer, and the reporting form for Doctors, to report any condition that may arise in a patient, that may affect their ability to operate a motor vehicle.
I can also imagine the consternation and cries of deceit this exercise will conjure, lol.
From a link you claimed you posted...
Applicants will not be medically disqualified on the basis of a diagnosis or disease, but only because of medical limitations affecting employment.
That is determined, by an exam and any previous conditions as determined by a medical history.
You might want to go back and reread that link I posted, that you think is to the Oakes Test. LOL
Last edited:
In another thread yes, but after looking closer realized I was partly wrong about that...the argument had no business in the thread it was in, so I started a new one to discuss...
No, because as I said, I was not required to provide records of medical history...
No, the conversation, from another thread mind you, started something like this:
I said providing medical history is violation of doctor/patient confidentiality, and you said depends on the occupation, and I said emphatic no, and you said soldier, trucker, fireman, police, getting the hint?...
So therefore, this has never been about a specific employer, and from the start has been about a generalized definition of employer...again, you are wrong, and trying to twist the argument to fit your narrow field of regard...
That said, there is evidence that some of what you said regarding military recruitment was right, and I acknowledged that, because that's what mature people do...you on the other hand have been wrong on all the other examples you provided, and have been a complete and utter a$$hole the entire time...I guess that's your way of arguing your point, post something that's sort of right, and ignore everything that shows you to be wrong...
You haven't been poking me in the eye, I'm just tired of dealing with your trolling...
Which kind of got me to thinking:
You and I had never conversed prior to my return to the board about a month ago. Since then you have stalked me through almost every post I've posted in and trolled and flamed my posts and showed yourself to be a real douche...others in this thread have agreed with me, yet you haven't attacked them in the same manner...
What I figure is Goober, with whom I've had dealings in the past, probably put you up to this unmitigated attack on everything I say...it may have been someone else, but Goober is the most probable...
Similar eh? If they have a list of disqualifying criteria, which I suspect is the case, as I saw plent of those in my research as well, then they are not similar, they are not even close...but I suppose someone with as black & white an understanding of everything would reckon so...
Post it then...
I did post it, dumbass...but whatever...
Your assessment of the meaning of that statement is refuted by the Additional Examinations section where it says:
Again, you're making **** up to qualify your absurd claims...