Who should be allowed access to your medical records?
- Thread starter Vanni Fucci
- Start date
Have I spent too much time in the sticks or is this something to be paranoid about? On my list of worries this is presently #544. :smile:
Well, if you are currently unemployed with a history of depression and the interviewer for a job as a secretary asks to see your medical history, you might have a cause for concern.
I imagine you aren't in that position.
Neither am I.
For me, it is purely academic. I just happen to like to advocate on behalf of increased privacy. Then again, some might argue that examinations are more invasive...
As it is for me...I have no personal stake in any of this, but thought it would be a good topic of discussion...privacy in general, but specifically medical history which has a time honoured tradition of having been protected by the convention of doctor/patient confidentiality even before there were any privacy laws...
In addition, while in the interview and selection stage, there is no contract between parties...neither are legally obligated to the other in terms of the employer/employee relationship...once an employee has been given the initial offer of employemt, that changes, and then the employer can request that an employee consent to release of medical history for specific purposes...if those purposes should ever change, then a new request for consent must be made of the employee...
For an employer to have a right to access that medical history during the selection process is like an employer asking a candidate to list any civil actions they may been involved in, demanding to see the lawyers notes from pivate discussions, and then not hiring a person because they were behind on their child support payments 15 years ago...sure it may speak to that person's character, maybe not...either way it's none of an employer's business...
I'm not going to explain it again Tenpenny...I've been through this too many times already...
My biggest concern about medical records is the unknown factors relating to advancements in testing. For any number of reasons one might be identified, for example, as a carrier of the CF gene but be in perfectly good health. Are you comfortable with stuff like that getting in the hands of those who have no need to know. Will insurers acquire that info from employment databases? Will your kids be on some insurers watch list when they eventually apply for insurance? Such an example has no bearing on how medically fit one is to do any job but the process of disclosing medical records which house that information could have more unrelated consequences.
If your mother had an amniocentisis while carrying you then your medical records include some form of genetic analysis about you. You probably have no idea what it is but it's on record in some medical database.
Protecting privacy and confidentiality has never been more important than in the age we are in. The potential misuse of those records could be significant.
If your mother had an amniocentisis while carrying you then your medical records include some form of genetic analysis about you. You probably have no idea what it is but it's on record in some medical database.
Protecting privacy and confidentiality has never been more important than in the age we are in. The potential misuse of those records could be significant.
No, you were completely wrong in the other thread, but carry on, it's fun to watch you flail around.
You weren't asked to fill out the medical questionnaire? Which you claimed was illegal. What year did you enlist?
Are you really as daft as you come off?
Those are specific careers, from specific fields of employment.
Some? I already posted quotes from the Armed Forces site that confirm what I have said since the other thread.
You were wrong when you said I was right in the OP?
And don't worry, I treat everyone that acts like you, like this.
You proved me right, I haven't ignored anything. You haven't posted anything contradictory that pertains to the specific occupations I cited.
The swelling must be causing some blindness, lol...
I highly doubt that.
I already explained this to you. I don't treat reasonable people like I treat you. As for you silly claim of stalking, grow a vag and stop being such lying douche bag.
Although Goob's and I are brothers, no one has put me up to anything. I figured out you were an idiot, shortly after you attacked me for a post I made on torture.
Interesting, didn't ask for the POPAT information, but asks for the MTO information. Funny.
Something tells me Vanni knows he's lying about his claims on Fire and Police services, lol.
Anyways, only because I love making you look like an idiot...
http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/pdf/ans-rmv-drivers-medical-examination-report.pdf
Part 3. It's the NS version, but it's the same as Ontario's. Ontario doesn't have a version I can find on line.
http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/023-SR-LC-097~1/$File/SR-LC-097.pdf
Ontario's Physician reporting form.
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services :: Medical Reqs
First sentence, third paragraph.
From... Fit as a Firefighter
http://www.fitasafirefighter.ca/PDF/Individualized_Health_Risk_Appraisal.pdf
Enjoy.
Context is important. I'm sure you think you're on the right track though, lol.
You shouldn't talk to yourself in public, people will start to talk.
Last edited:
No, I wasn't required to provide medical history records...that is what this discussion is about...look at the title and the OP.
My military record is Protected B information, and you'll have to go through the proper channels to access it.
Let's have a look at this then...
Nothing here about having to provide medical history records in order to be gainfully employed...PWND!
This is a form for health care professionals to report any conditions that would affect driving for someone who is already doing so...it is not a form for an employer to determine fitness of a candidate for employment...nice try though...PWND!
How about the remainder of the third paragraph:
Also how about this:
Didn't you read the bolded statements on that page...lol...PWND!
This kinda made me chuckle...
I suspect that Phoenix and other departments do not have PIPA, PIPEDA or Charter of Rights and Freedoms to contend with...
Great info, may or may not be accurate...lol...PWND!
As to your obvious lies that I attacked you in some post on torture, the way I recall it is that I responded to a post of Colpy's that the term enemy combatant was a fabrication to allow the US a perceived loophole in international law in order to righteously torture insurgents...you launched a full on assault on that statement, and with the help of your illegitimate brother basically trolled and flamed and turned it into a shiit-show...
I suspect that the more likely reason is that I called you out on your trolling of Cannuck. I don't know Cannuck at all, and to my knowledge have never had a discussion with him...but back when I was a regular poster on this forum, the kind of trolling and flaming that you were doing to him would not have been tolerated...
Since then, I've had to deal with your trolling bullshiit in most of the other threads I've posted in...
I used to be a mod on this forum a long time ago, and am well aware of what consititutes harrassment in the Terms of Service...I do my best to repond to your BS calmly and if you can't discuss something with me in a civil manner then take a pass on responding to any of my posts, because you're trolling is not appreciated...
An interesting read...
No privacy of health information in Canada
Did you miss the word questionnaire?
LOL, now that was funny!!! All I asked was what year you enlisted.
LOL
Ya, I can understand why you would ignore the great big words Medical History. You need to provide a medical history, to just get your Commercial license.
Which goes back to...
LMAO!!! I never said it was a form for employers.
Here's what I said...
Since I was talking about truckers in that string, it shouldn't be surprising that I would put up the MTO, who cover Commercial licenses, ie: Truckers. Even G class. Doctors have the ability to simply fill out the form and report your medical condition to the MTO. Without your consent.
Do I have to hold your hand through every single post?
LOL...Irrelavant, the words are their, MEDICAL HISTORY. Something you keep saying is illegal and doesn't exist.
Gawd you're dumb.
I imagine it would. You aren't very bright and likely don't know what you're looking at.
Phoenix?
Speaking of PWND, you shouldn't PWN yourself. Try Ottawa.
Dr. Scott Miller D.C.
Training Officer
Ottawa Fire Services
Better yet, you should have at least Googled NFPA 1 1582: Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments. Look up Chapter 6, section 6.1.1
It's what Ottawa, and my local FD lists as their standard medical test. Hell, a cursory search showed numerous Dept's across the country use it.
I got the link from a buddy who's the deputy FC at the local station. The .ca should have been a dead give away.
Geezus you're a moron. The guys at the local Fire Station, agree with that observation.
Wrong again, as usual. Really, you should try and get your sh!t together, I'm starting to feel bad for you.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/c...3-how-conservatives-feel-about-torture-2.html
Enjoy eating your lies.
Ya you used to be a mod. Than you and your buddies tried to pull a coup.
Now you're a member, and not a bright one at that. If you post it, and it's humourously idiotic enough to get my attention, I'll continue to point it out.
Grow a vag.
Here's an even more interesting read...
PWND!
Last edited:
Did you miss the OP and the title of the thread?
Then you're posting information that's irrelevant to the discussion...stop being so disruptive...
The bolded claim of yours seems dubious, I'll have to look into it further as an inocuous form does not provide much detail about how it's able to circumvent privacy law without due process...
So smart guy with the Law Library in your bookmarks, why don't you do something useful and find the case that was argued in the Supreme Court that allows them to do this, and I'll do the same, then we can compare notes...
If there is no such case, then you are wrong again and that form you linked to is illegal...
No, but honesty would be nice...
NFPA is a non-profit organization that has nothing to do with mandating recruitment standards for fire departments...
From the City of Ottawa Fire Department recruitment site:
http://ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/careers/fire/pre_qualification/stage_05/index.html
Now shut the **** up!
I thought the IFAA was the more dead give away...International Association FireFighters...
Do you really need me to explain what that means?
What? That was perceived by you as an attack? What was that about growing a vag?
Nice try troll...even Andem doesn't know the circumstances behind my departure...and I was asked if I wanted to stay on as mod because I'd been absent for a couple months, and I replied that I did not...I later returned as a regular poster, was gone again for a couple years, and now I'm back...
I was at no time part of any coup...that's a figment of your trollish imagination or bad information from your troll brother Goob, since you weren't around at the time, I suspect the latter...
Nope, I saw where you said I was right about the Armed Forces. I was also right about the other three specific careers.
You said I was wrong, I was just proving you wrong, lol.
It actually states the Act that permits it on the form.
But hey, look into it. When you actually do look into things, you come back and post something that proves me right.
LOL, I already post the SCC's interpretation of Section 15. That would be the link you confused for the Oakes Test, lol.
Ya so? So is IAPA.
This is why you look stupid. You look for cursory sh!t that suits your position...
• Meet the medical standards (NFPA 1 1582: Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments) at the time of a medical examination.
From...
http://ottawa.ca/cs/groups/content/@webottawa/documents/pdf/mdaw/mdq5/~edisp/dev012605.pdf
Which is on the link you just provided, dumbass. You have to dig deep to get to the facts, stop scratching at the surface. You look intellectually lazy, at best, stupid at worst, both I've observed you doing in the past.
While you're looking things up, look up Chapter 6, section 6.1.1.
Oh forget it, I'll have to wait for you to start another thread and prove me right...
6.1.1* The medical evaluation of a candidate shall include a
medical history, examination, and any laboratory tests required
to detect physical or medical condition(s) that could adversely
affect his/her ability to safely perform the essential job tasks outlined
in 5.1.1.
There ya go skippy.
Now that I PWND you, yet again, I won't tell you to shut the **** up. I'm not as immature as you.
LOL. That was cute.
No. Just stupid.
Faulty intel on my part, now watch this, my apologies.
You should try that sometime. Especially after being proven wrong so many times.
Wow, Goob's speaks highly of you.
Last edited:
Dude, I wouldn't worry to much about it, he's obviously not that bright.
He's either confusing you for Gh, or he's full of ****.
Either or, it's just the net bru.
I kind of gathered he may not be a DIRECT descendent of Einstein, but I didn't want to be rude. :lol:
Oh my goodness. For all the moaning you're doing about Bear, you seem to be pulling the exact same punches, if not lower ones.
And that's not a compliment.
The dubious claim of which you speak is in the Highway Traffic Act. Doctor's are required to report to the MTO medical conditions that may make one unable to operate a motor vehicle, irrespective even of whether someone even has a driver's license. I know someone to whom this happened.
From the Highway Traffic Act:
As to the thread topic:
Every single link I've looked through, every single search I've personally done (from the Canadian Forces "How to Apply" website to various HRC in different provinces) clearly state that reasonable requests for information on medical history that are pertinent to employment are allowable. If you are required to fill in a questionnaire about your medical condition past and present, and it's clear that some types of employment do require this, you are providing an employer with private medical information.
From your OP:
From the FAQ for the City of Toronto Fire Services Recruitment:
http://www.toronto.ca/fire/recruitment/faq.htm#a05
So what is it exactly that you're looking to discuss?
Dragging another forum member into it who's not even been a part of this conversation? That is definitely starting to remind me of Cannuck.
And that's not a compliment.
The dubious claim of which you speak is in the Highway Traffic Act. Doctor's are required to report to the MTO medical conditions that may make one unable to operate a motor vehicle, irrespective even of whether someone even has a driver's license. I know someone to whom this happened.
From the Highway Traffic Act:
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8
As to the thread topic:
Every single link I've looked through, every single search I've personally done (from the Canadian Forces "How to Apply" website to various HRC in different provinces) clearly state that reasonable requests for information on medical history that are pertinent to employment are allowable. If you are required to fill in a questionnaire about your medical condition past and present, and it's clear that some types of employment do require this, you are providing an employer with private medical information.
From your OP:
From the RCMP retired police officer program:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/po-mp/pdfs/ret-eng.pdf
From the FAQ for the City of Toronto Fire Services Recruitment:
http://www.toronto.ca/fire/recruitment/faq.htm#a05
So what is it exactly that you're looking to discuss?
So what is going on.
WTF and Why the Fuk am I being drawn into this. WTF is going on.
Is the question to blunt?
You are of course correct SLM. I am wrong and you are right. Thank you so much for pointing that out to me.