Mudcat Café message #3779213 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #159491   Message #3779213
Posted By: GUEST,Musket
16-Mar-16 - 11:01 AM
Thread Name: BS: A 'rights' issue?
Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
Thank you. At last, someone else reads the article. (By the way, I was getting a nationality or two confused in my posts, put it down to being busy coupled with a fascination with any thread where ignorance leads to indignation at matters the op doesn't grasp.). I kept saying occupational health v a consultation outside of work and it took till now for someone else to check as well.

Just shows that it's just Akenaton who is excited by this, and for reasons he failed to disguise as usual.

As I said above, there is no compulsion for a doctor you see personally to know your employer. It is relevant to many consultations to know your line of work and in this case to advise the patient to inform his employer (and flight insurance for that matter.) There is no reason for the doctor to explain clinical judgement to an inquiry not competent to judge it. His professional registration body could get a referral if the inquiry is adamant process hadn't been followed but other than complaining that their remit isn't wide enough to be comprehensive, I don't see where clinical judgement is being questioned.

If the doctor does not feel in his professional judgement that disclosing medical records is in the public interest, he is obliged not to disclose. A court could decide otherwise of course and if the inquiry wished they could apply, but the court would have to ask where assessing clinical judgement is within their remit.

And that's all we are accountable for, clinical judgement. The judgement of any reasonable doctor would be that a professional person whose whole ethos is safety would be at low risk of not doing what was required of him. 20/20 hindsight may be a wonderful thing but there you go.

If you don't understand that, stop claiming due process is wrong when you don't understand the concept let alone the detail.