mudcat.org: BS: A 'rights' issue?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: A 'rights' issue?

GUEST,Derrick 17 Mar 16 - 09:26 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Mar 16 - 09:26 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Mar 16 - 08:49 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Mar 16 - 08:10 AM
GUEST,Musket 17 Mar 16 - 07:25 AM
Rob Naylor 17 Mar 16 - 06:31 AM
akenaton 17 Mar 16 - 06:07 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Mar 16 - 05:55 AM
akenaton 17 Mar 16 - 05:53 AM
akenaton 17 Mar 16 - 05:38 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Mar 16 - 05:01 AM
akenaton 17 Mar 16 - 04:30 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Mar 16 - 04:12 AM
GUEST,Musket 17 Mar 16 - 03:57 AM
akenaton 17 Mar 16 - 03:35 AM
GUEST,Musket 17 Mar 16 - 03:11 AM
LadyJean 16 Mar 16 - 09:36 PM
Stilly River Sage 16 Mar 16 - 07:57 PM
akenaton 16 Mar 16 - 06:01 PM
akenaton 16 Mar 16 - 05:41 PM
MGM·Lion 16 Mar 16 - 05:32 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 16 Mar 16 - 05:13 PM
Joe Offer 16 Mar 16 - 04:32 PM
GUEST,Richard Bridge on the Intel Quad Core 16 Mar 16 - 01:23 PM
GUEST,Musket 16 Mar 16 - 11:01 AM
Rob Naylor 16 Mar 16 - 10:59 AM
Rob Naylor 16 Mar 16 - 10:56 AM
Greg F. 16 Mar 16 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,Sol 16 Mar 16 - 10:37 AM
akenaton 16 Mar 16 - 10:36 AM
Rob Naylor 16 Mar 16 - 10:14 AM
akenaton 16 Mar 16 - 08:54 AM
Stilly River Sage 16 Mar 16 - 08:38 AM
akenaton 16 Mar 16 - 08:13 AM
GUEST,Musket 16 Mar 16 - 06:26 AM
Joe Offer 16 Mar 16 - 04:24 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Mar 16 - 04:05 AM
akenaton 16 Mar 16 - 03:54 AM
Joe Offer 16 Mar 16 - 03:37 AM
akenaton 16 Mar 16 - 03:34 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Mar 16 - 03:08 AM
akenaton 16 Mar 16 - 02:52 AM
GUEST,Musket 16 Mar 16 - 02:25 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Mar 16 - 01:19 AM
GUEST,Musket 15 Mar 16 - 05:42 PM
akenaton 15 Mar 16 - 03:43 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Mar 16 - 02:51 PM
GUEST,Musket 15 Mar 16 - 02:35 PM
akenaton 15 Mar 16 - 02:32 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Mar 16 - 02:26 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 09:26 AM

GFS re blood tests pre marriage for STDs,only in three US states as I can see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 09:26 AM

"if they were aware that a person could or would, pose a risk"
Not an issue here apparently - the doctor claimed he wasn't aware ogf the patient's occupation; in which case, is it his job to find out and pass on the information (assuming, of course, he was qualified to assess that this person was a risk - he was a general practitioner, wasn't he)
What you appear to be saying is all this patient confidentiality nonsense is just that - nonsense - and anybody in receipt of such information is duty bound to pass it on to whoever he sees fit?
Do I have that right?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 08:49 AM

So, gathering from the last group of posts, that the issue at hand, is whether doctors should speak up(to someone) if they were aware that a person could or would, pose a risk, to others, by their condition, either physical or mental...OK, what's so bad about that??..Then 'marriage' was brought into it, right?..Does anyone remember the time, when before a marriage license was granted, the two people who were applying for the marriage license, had to get a blood test for syphilis, gonorrhea or VD, in general?....Now, did that violate anyone's 'rights'?? Seems like some people are over-extending the 'hyper-sensitivities', because they would prefer to believe that HIV/AIDS is the product of a 'benign benevolent' activity, that makes one healthier!!
There comes a time when the quest to find new 'whines' over 'rights', defeats the purpose of even wanting an evaluation of any sort, to protect the general public.
Wouldn't you WANT to know, if you, or your partner had syphilis? gonorrhea, a VD, or HIV/AIDS???....all of which are pretty avoidable, just as diagnosing a pilot with suicidal tendencies....don't you think???
I can just see it now, the doctor takes a blood sample, testing for a VD/STD....and is afraid to tell ANYONE, because it might hurt their feelings!
Got news for you....if a doctor, finds certain, fatal STD's, they then, start asking that person their sexual history, and try to get a list of those people who could be at risk.....after all, don't we have a 'right' to know if we are at risk, just because some bimbo(male or female) was indiscriminately, and often discreetly, exposing themselves, as well as others, through their behavior??
I bet ya' Charlie Sheen isn't gettin' laid as often...and his condition made headlines!!...who got hurt???..who's 'rights' got violated???......Ever wonder if some star-struck 'lover' might have to right to avoid him sexually???

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 08:10 AM

"even GUEST seems to realise the far reaching effects "
Nor sure which 'Guest' yo are referring to but can't find anybody suggesting that this is a "rights issue", which was your point and which is all that concerns me.
Anyway, I'm not interested in character references as to who agrees with you - just your own arguments
No right is unimportant enough not to defend and it should be never a question of 'either-or'.
As has been pointed out, pilots are employed on the basis of stringent medical examinations, and if anything has gone AWOL, it is the procedure of selection, not the principle of medical privacy and it is that which needs re-examination.
So the anser to your original question, is it "another example of bad "rights" legislation?" - is, no, it isn't, or if it is, it has yet to be proven so.
The pilots' selection procedure effects the selection of pilots, medical privacy effects us all.
Peoples rights in fact are "the be all and end all of those they protect" - if you remove them without replacement, we are left unprotected at a time when we see our personal rights eroded and even abolished to preserve a failing system, especially at a time when politicians and employers are queuing up to remove them - take a peep at what's happening on the 'zero contracts' and 'security of tenure' fronts - going, going, gone - and never called me muvver!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 07:25 AM

The whole basis for this thread is a couple of posts up where Akenaton states that people's rights aren't the be all and end all.

He just used the wrong event as ever to demonstrate his point. zzz Mind you, 7/10 for trying to wriggle out of calling doctors "doctors." Would be plausible if it weren't for his use of "marriage" and "rights" when it comes to spewing out his homophobia.

The inquiry is asking for what already is in place but making a song and dance out of it because they wished to criticise clinical judgement and rightly, they aren't competent to do so so in this case, the system is working.

From the quote in the story, it seems the inquiry has registered concern with Bundesärztekammer, the German GMC equivalent so a competent body may, if they have grounds, investigate to see if the doctor did note advising the patient of his professional obligations.

Nothing to see here, except for Akenaton nursing a semi over curtailing human rights. He was born twenty years too late and 600 miles too far west to ever be happy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 06:31 AM

Pete ssl: I would imagine that doctors don't generally know the occupations of their patients, however , when I was an Hgv driver I had to have regular medicals for my licence. I may be wrong, but I would have thought the same would apply for a pilots licence ?

Pilots have very regular medicals (every 6 months I think), but these are organised through their employers' Occupational Health schemes. In THIS case, as some of us keep pointing out, the medical practitioner involved was the guy's own GP, which is a different kettle of fish.

In order for me to be able to go offshore, I have to have an annual medical, but again this is organised by my employer and has to be at a medical facility approved by the offshore/maritime authorities. The doctors who give me my "fit to work offshore" medicals are not and never have been my personal GPs. It's two parallel systems with no cross-referencing, and there is no need for my personal GP to know my occupation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 06:07 AM

Get a grip Jim, even GUEST seems to realise the far reaching effects of this case for "rights" legislation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 05:55 AM

"personal rights are not the "be all and end all""
And single anomalies like these are no reason to cast doubt on them.
If pilots with mental problems crashing planes were regular occurrences, you might have a point.
Probably the greatest risk of human error in the aviation industry comes from cabin staff being forced to work too many hours and companies failing to allow enough checking time between flights in order to keep planes in the air for as long as possible in order to make the most profit (I've heard it referred to as 'the Raynair Syndrome'), but I really can't see you questioning the profit motive in the industry - can you?
Rather, you would seek to undermine one of our basic rights.
In the end, personal rights are all we've got to protect us from a predatory system that looks on the general population as a purse-filler.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 05:53 AM

BTW, I was taken to task for using the word "doctors" in inverted commas in my OP.
Here is the sentence...... "The inquiry into the plane crash in the French Alps which killed over a hundred people, has found that "doctors, who confirmed Lubitz had "shown symptoms suggesting a psychotic depressive episode" just weeks before the crash, refused to speak to investigators, citing patient confidentiality.
The inverted commas before "shown" were a typo, the other inverted commas were to signify a direct quote; which should have been obvious to any one without an agenda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 05:38 AM

Jim the implications are quite clear, personal rights are not the "be all and end all". Certainly in cases like this, where public safety or public health are concerned.

Now, I am satisfied with the inquiry, blame may yet be placed on those who failed to report or co-operate for whatever reason, but it seems that lessons have been learned.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 05:01 AM

"Jim, in my opinion, you really want another chance to turn the thread into the same old abusive shitheap and get it closed as quickly as possible."
If that is the case, you could avoid my doing so with answers instead of abuse.
You did not open this thread to discuss the tragedy - you specifically made it a "rights issue" and brought into question "many" other unspecified "rights".
I am responding to your OP - do not accuse me of making it a "shitheap" when you have already done so.
Now - answer the question.
Start with this one if you like - do you believe that this case makes it "Another example of bad "rights" legislation?" - to borrow your own phrase.
Then - you can go on to the "many others"
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 04:30 AM

Jim, in my opinion, you really want another chance to turn the thread into the same old abusive shitheap and get it closed as quickly as possible.

You know very well the implications of the inquiry's recommendations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 04:12 AM

"You reckon, Jim? Seriously?"
Yes - seriously Mike.
It was made an "ideological issue" when Ake broadened with veiled references to other 'questionable' rights which he refuses to reveal.
It is not the first time he has dismissed generally accepted rights, particularly those of homosexuals, which he has written off as unimportant - from a posting on a recent thread, he believes homosexuality to be a mental illness anyway.
Nobody disputes that this tragedy should not have happened and it is possible that it might have been avoided had it been handled differently - it is the way it has been used in a broader sense to question basic rights that I find objectionable.
I equally find objectionable the 'lynch mob' mentality of apportioning blame before all the facts of an issue are known.
If Ake objects to our rights, (he has referred to "many" he disapproves of) he should have the bottle to raise them for discussion and not use a tragedy such as this to snideswipe at our already flawed democratic rights.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 03:57 AM

So you agree with the situation as it stands already? The only thing that would be different in the quote you give to the status quo is culpability after the event. No legislation could or would prevent private civil action so all that happens is our indemnity insurance goes up because our insurers would be obliged to cover our legal costs. Been there before.

I give up. I tried debating with him, tried addressing his points objectively and away you go.

The view of this Mr Jouty is from his perspective. There are other perspectives and just as in many fields, he wants what already exists but is asking for it as if it didn't because in this case, it didn't suit the needs of what he represents. Their hand wringing exercise needs another scape goat, basically. The telling point is in dragging WHO into his speech. What the flying fuck has national legal process to do with an international public health surveillance and intervention council?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 03:35 AM

"Mr Jouty says it is important to "strike a balance between patient confidentiality and public safety".

He adds when doctors believe there is a "likely risk to public safety" that "healthcare providers should be protected to avoid being taken to court when such information is passed on.

"We think this is a global issue".

The recommendation will be passed on to the World Health Organisation and to the German Transport Ministry and German Doctors Council .......I agree strongly with the recommendations of the inquiry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Mar 16 - 03:11 AM

The bit about Canada Israel and Norway is misleading. The system is similar to EU countries in that where a doctor is of the opinion that for public health and safety a patient either cannot or will not disclose to a regulatory body issues that their continued practice could compromise public safety, the doctor is obliged to seek to take this further.

In none of the countries mentioned are doctors obliged to contact employers. They are obliged to refer to regulatory bodies if the patient either refuses or lacks capacity to do so. The difference the article refers to is culpability after the event with regard to whether the doctor did or not.

If you read other articles, including those in the medical press, this is about the needs of the inquiry vs the fundamental basis of patient confidentiality and people, in a similar way to Akenaton's point, using the tragedy to break that confidence. Sadly, governments wouldn't need much persuading although in the face of refusal by the medical profession, wouldn't get very far.

The doctors in this case are right, judging by everything I have read. The investigation is not competent for assessing clinical judgement so there is nothing to be added by the huge step of releasing records. If a court subsequently feels otherwise, and a court is a competent body, then such things can be disclosed.

This really is a non story. If the situation here for instance was how Akenaton thinks it is, then none of the GP practices that Shipman worked at would have cooperated with the inquiry, but they did. It is each situation on merit.

Who knows? The doctor in this case may have something to hide? If so, their professional registration body will investigate it, as required. But in any case, at this stage the doctor is quite right in not breaking the law in order to comply with a request that doesn't fit the criteria for disclosure. If the doctor was aware of the occupation and advised accordingly, then that is taken as read unless a competent investigation says otherwise.

This is the real world where the needs of one legal framework don't fit with the needs of another. The understandable anguish of those involved is exacerbated by thinking the inquiry needs to know something in order to get to the bottom of it. What none of us know is why the doctor is of the professional opinion that disclosure isn't appropriate. A simple referral to Bundesärztekammer, the German medical registration body.

Far too many factual errors and misleading pints in the article for it to be useful. However, there are others, in English. If anyone is interested, Google and find them. I think that the article recently in BMJ is in the public non log in area of their website and this gives a balanced appraisal, criticising the approach by both sides, inferring that there are ways to have prevented this reaching this point but like many of us, seeing it blunder its way into compromising the confidence between doctors and patients should opportunist politicians use it for a government excuse to know even more about us.

Here in The UK, we are already seeing The Home Secretary play the terror card in order to give police easier access to medical records. The present system of convincing a magistrate for a warrant is adequate and safeguarding, but recent speeches by Theresa May chillingly suggest otherwise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: LadyJean
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 09:36 PM

A friend, also severely depressed, drove down to a nearby bridge with the intention of jumping off. The bridge was fenced. I live in Pittsburgh, which is at the confluence of 3 rivers. We have a lot of bridges, most of them aren't fenced. He could have jumped off another bridge. Instead he drove home. Not all depressed people are suicidal. Not all suicidal people are really eager to kill themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 07:57 PM

Did they expect a "severe depressive" to self report? If so, they were taking wild chances with the lives of hundreds of people.

We live in a world where mental illness is treated as a stigma by society in general. Look at your sentence and apply it to many enterprises - planes, trains, ferries, and more. Apply it to individuals going about their daily lives but operating heavy machinery or driving personal vehicles. Apply it to physicians themselves. Impaired surgeons, diagnosticians, etc. The US has barely begun to make mental health issues a part of gun purchasing advance checks. There isn't a satisfactory system in place that would allow reporting that would be useful in some instances and not detrimental in others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 06:01 PM

"The key recommendation of the report is for doctors to be able to breach patient confidentiality to warn aviation authorities of potential risks.

The report states: "Legal frameworks in most countries allow doctors to breach medical confidentially and warn authorities if the disclosure of personal information would lessen or prevent a serious and/or imminent danger or a threat to public safety.

"In some countries, like Canada, Israel, or Norway, it is even compulsory for health care providers to do so, even without the consent of the patient.

"A survey conducted by the BEA shows that the absence of formal definition of "imminent danger" and "threat to public safety" drives doctors to adopt a conservative approach."
"The first recommendation of the report is revealed as investigators recommend a change in the law to protect doctors who pass on medical information to protect the public.

Mr Jouty says it is important to "strike a balance between patient confidentiality and public safety".

He adds when doctors believe there is a "likely risk to public safety" that "healthcare providers should be protected to avoid being taken to court when such information is passed on.

"We think this is a global issue".

The recommendation will be passed on to the World Health Organisation and to the German Transport Ministry and German Doctors Council


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 05:41 PM

The pertinent fact is that the doctors were not prepared to speak to the inquiry....it seems obvious that they had something to hide as "Patient Confidentiality" was no longer an issue.

I believe that they did admit to knowing the patient's employment I will look through the articles to check that out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 05:32 PM

It really is somewhat ghoulish to make an "ideological" issue of the deaths of so many people. Jim Carroll
.,,.

You reckon, Jim? Seriously? What would you suggest it would be more worthwhile to "make an 'ideological' issue of", then?

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 05:13 PM

I would imagine that doctors don't generally know the occupations of their patients, however , when I was an Hgv driver I had to have regular medicals for my licence. I may be wrong, but I would have thought the same would apply for a pilots licence ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 04:32 PM

Since I'm not able to observe directly, I have to assume that the doctors were competent and did what they were supposed to do, and that the investigators also were competent and did what they were supposed to do. I wouldn't speculate otherwise unless I had access to documented evidence.
Since I worked as an investigator for thirty years, I'm fussy about such things and don't jump to wild speculation. I assume the professionals are competent unless there is evidence to the contrary.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the Intel Quad Core
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 01:23 PM

I, too, smell a rat. It comes from somewhere in Scotland professing to be a socialist who is fervently opposed to any rights of anyone except himself and like-minded bigots. He's all for their rights.

Oh, and there's another in Essex - same lack of respect for rights, opposite pole of the political spectrum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 11:01 AM

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 10:59 AM

For "illness" read "injury" in the above post! I don't get ill from any of those activities (except when I scare myself sick climbing , occasionally....oh, and once in a "Tough Guy" race where I ingested some mud contaminated with animal faeces and had the squits for a week). But I do break things with depressing regularity!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 10:56 AM

If they did not know what his job was (and I find that incredible)

Why? My last doctor knew what I did for a living, but only because we discussed it in passing when I was being monitored for Chagas' Disease. He certainly didn't record it anywhere. My current doctor knows that I run a lot, do British Military Fitness and rock climb....but only because whenever I've visited him it's been because of a leisure activity-related illness.

Why on earth would it be incredible for a doctor not to know what someone did for a living?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 10:41 AM

they should have made an attempt to find out.


Why?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 10:37 AM

Alas, another thread morphs into a sword fight.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 10:36 AM

The Doctors did say that their non co operation was on grounds of "Patient Confidentiality"......If they did not know what his job was (and I find that incredible), they should have made an attempt to find out.

Every time I see a new doctor am usually asked what my employment is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 10:14 AM

In its 87-page final report into the tragedy, the French crash investigation agency, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA), found that they could have done nothing to stop Lubitz.

"No action could have been taken by the authorities and/or his employer to prevent him from flying that day, because they were informed by neither the co-pilot himself, nor by anyone else, such as a physician, a colleague or family member," it said.

The BEA's report revealed that a private doctor had recommended Lubitz be admitted to a psychiatric hospital a fortnight before the crash.


So it seems from this report that it was his personal physician, rather than a corporate Occupational Health doctor, who had seen him.

I'm not sure my own doctor in UK would even know what I do for a living. I've certainly never told him, and I don't know where he would have found out the information otherwise. I'm just a patient with an NHS number, an address and a medical history going back virtually to birth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 08:54 AM

Not ridiculous at all Acme, anyone who answers no to that question would expect the doctors to report these serious conditions to the airline.
The doctors did not report or co-operate with the inquiry.
Did they expect a "severe depressive" to self report? If so, they were taking wild chances with the lives of hundreds of people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 08:38 AM

Hindsight is always 20/20. You're asking a ridiculous question, Ake, because Joe would be in no position to know. We all calculate that the odds are good we'll survive a trip out our front door every morning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 08:13 AM

Joe.....where the lives of the travelling public are concerned "Severe depression or suicidal tendencies" are inappropriate ......I am not talking about "a history of psychiatric issues"...that could mean anything.

I repeat the question, would you or wouldn't you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 06:26 AM

And again... Can anyone who seems to think there is s problem tell us whether the doctor was doing occupational health work on behalf of the airline or personal healthcare for the pilot?

In the former, the investigation has the report as submitted by the airline to the inquiry. If the latter, the doctor has to ask his patient to consider the impact of the consultation concerns on his work and if the doctor knows he is a pilot, to require the patient to disclose that he has a medical concern that is covered by the terms of his pilot licence and employment therein. Only if a doctor has concerns that the patient will not act on the advice should a doctor preempt that. Out of interest, neither UK or German law requires details of employer on personal medical records, just type of employment to aid diagnosis as appropriate. Some do ask and many people supply details but you cannot preempt that to be the case.

So... Was this a GP? Psychiatrist? Other? The former can diagnose mild depression but would refer for suspected acute depression. You see, just saying "doctor" doesn't even begin to address responsibility or role.

Fed up of repeating here but a doctor is obliged to preempt disclosure in the public health and safety interest only if there are grounds for concern (we are all trained in trying to distinguish such grounds) that a patient would not do it themselves, a communicable disease has been suspected / diagnosed or a doctor suspects a criminal act, (gunshot wounds etc.)

The inquiry is required to work on the basis the requirements have been met or if they suspect otherwise, refer it to a competent authority. The inquiry isn't a medical one so cannot pass comment on clinical judgement. 20/20 hindsight tends to be the main focus, based on inquiries I have been involved with.

If the ludicrous position Akenaton is putting forward were the case, then the local chemist shop is culpable if a person takes pain killers "that may cause drowsiness, do not drive or operate machinery" and does so. If I buy a bottle of Night Nurse, should Boots take my car keys off me?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 04:24 AM

Ake, in many (probably most) situations, "severe" depression can be controlled by medication. If that's the case, should the prejudice against mental health problems persist. For that matter, should there be prejudice against any medical or psychological problem that experts believe to be under control?
In this case, there was failure to predict that the pilot would go out of control. But is that enough to support an overall prohibition against people with a past history of psychiatric issues?


-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 04:05 AM

"oe, would you travel on a plane or let any friends or family do so,"
None of this answers your attack on patient confidentiality - nor does it answer Joe's question.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 03:54 AM

Joe, would you travel on a plane or let any friends or family do so, if you knew the piolot was a "severe depressive" with "Suicidal tendencies"?
That was the decision the doctors had to make.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 03:37 AM

I know from family experience that it does seem in the United States, that even minor psychological issues can be an impediment to getting a job as a pilot. As a government personnel investigator, I encountered extreme prejudices against psychological issues in most fields of employment, particularly in "sensitive" positions.

But counseling professionals may tend to discount such prejudices, and probably do put priority emphasis on the employment of their clients. In this particular case, the counseling professional failed to predict that the client would go off the deep end.

Could the counselor have predicted the disaster? I don't think so. I'm not sure that this is reason to find fault with anyone.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 03:34 AM

One hundred and fifty dead people(and their relatives ) say I am right.

When the doctors come forward and explain themselves, you may have a case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 03:08 AM

"It is definitely "to blame for this tragedy""
I really don't know why people bother holding enquiries into these incidents - all they need to do is get in touch with you for the solution - job done
Won't bother asking how you know who is to blame for this particular tragedy - divine inspiration? a Ouija board maybe?
I suppose it must remain as much your little secret as all those "many other" rights you would have abolished.
You have dismissed the right we all have to patient confidentiality as "jargon" which says it all really - it is a questionable right, as are all these "many" other rights you apparently disapprove of yet refuse to disclose.
It is a right we all have and should not be breached unless we, as individuals agree that it should.
In the case of people whose jobs involve the safety of others, rights like these should be dealt with, not by removing them, but by covering them with regular medical checks instigated and paid for by the employers - an M.O.T.-type check, if you like, built into the contract of employment.
You have used this tragedy to undermine all our rights by suggesting it an unnecessary "rights issue" - isn't that always the case with 'right-wingers' - (pun intended).
The last few decades have seen a number of our rights, and employees, as tenants - disappear up the Swanee at the behest of the State.
Here in Ireland we have just seen the wholesale eviction of over 100 Dublin families from their rented homes because their landlords have sold the property to Goldman Sachs - security of tenure has become as much a thing of the past as has security of employment            
People like you would add patient confidentiality to that steadily growing list.
It really is somewhat ghoulish to make an "ideological" issue of the deaths of so many people.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 02:52 AM

"you are confusing basic human rights with a story to which the facts are not yet ascertained "


What do you not understand about "The doctors have refused to give evidence to the inquiry citing patient confidentiality"?
The patient is now dead along with one hundred and fifty people who were being piloted by someone who was known by the doctors to be severely depressed with suicidal tendencies.

Bad legislation producing gutless professionals.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 02:25 AM

Fair comment Goofus. However, if I were to pick two professional standards regimes with the most international harmonisation, it'd be doctors and pilots.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 01:19 AM

Was that really necessary??

It's a matter of jurisdiction....and who set up the 'rules'.

And BTW, the reason I brought up 'mindsets', using our own Constitution, as an EXAMPLE, is the PERCEPTION of 'rights' can vary, as well as enforcement, from culture to culture. We might think it does violate 'rights'...but on whose basis.

That being said, Musket, I thought had a well thought out explanation...assuming that another system, might bear the same concerns.. Others may not.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 16 - 05:42 PM

If yo don't understand how grown ups work, don't embarrass yourself.

Your post, from the first, has been ill informed, trying to undermine the system and based on ignorance, all with an aim to question professional standards and human rights.

There is no evidence that the doctor didn't discharge his duty correctly. There is no remit for accident investigators to demand information outside of (to use the UK term) Caldicott principles. If the medical examination was as part of his job and was occupational health, the doctor will have filed a report to the employer stating whether the pilot was fit for duties. If the patient saw a doctor outside of his work, the patient as a professional himself with professional obligations was obliged to inform his employer of the outcome of the consultation if the doctor advised accordingly.

Usimg words such as ideology and jargon instead of seeking to learn just serves to make your embarrassment compound. "Any doctor with an inch of gut" would go jogging in the morning till it disappeared. You read sensationalist shit and because it suits your dim take on the world, leap to conclusions. Doctors are people, include saints and sinners but nobody, neither you nor I know whether this doctor discharged his professional duty or not. If there is a question, he or she will be answerable under the present legal system in Germany. Crash investigators are not the competent body.

As Jim said, you are confusing basic human rights with a story to which the facts are not yet ascertained and in your opening post are linking it to your wish for a fascist society where rights take second place to your particular form of hatred. Patient confidentiality is already secondary to public safety risk and protocols are in place, as I explained in the thread for such eventualities.

You are a disturbed specimen. It is impossible to reason with you, as you are incapable of the niceties of debate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 16 - 03:43 PM

It is definitely "to blame for this tragedy", if the airline had been informed of the pilots state of mind, he would certainly not have been in control of the aircraft.....of course it is grounds for amending the right of patient confidentiality, when it endangers public safety

As I said earlier the one size fits all ideology just does not work in practice.   Circumstances alter cases.

Any doctor with an inch of gut would have informed the airline immediately regardless of the possibility of legal action.
Sloppy legislation!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 16 - 02:51 PM

"Never mind the jargon!"
What "jargon" - patient confidentiality is a hard won right.
If the doctor has attempted to cover up a dangerous condition, that has SFA to do with patient confidentiality; it's the doctor not having carried out his duties.
We're a funny old country - we usually wait until the facts are examined and a conclusion has been reached before we throw the rope over tye branch and string someone up - but that's a different matter altogether.
You have suggested that patient confidentiality is not only to blame for this tragedy, but it is grounds for undermining that basic right (and others - as yet unnamed)
You have linked this tragedy to a basic right we all have - please qualify that link
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 16 - 02:35 PM

Kindly read what I put and get someone to explain it to you. I'd do so myself but I have had two showers today as it is...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 16 - 02:32 PM

The patient was not deceased when examined by the doctors and found to have severe depression.
The doctors decided not to inform the airline at the time and subsequently refused to explain their conduct to the inquiry "citing patient confidentiality."

Never mind the jargon!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: A 'rights' issue?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 16 - 02:26 PM

"I smell a rat."
And I smell somebody who has made a sweeping statement about our rights and is now refusing to qualify it.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 15 December 2:36 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.