This Blog will discuss politics, government, corruption, police, S.I.U., courts, education, min. of attorney general, min. of labour, v.o.i.c.e. and other current and past events of interest to concerned citizens. In the "About me" section to the right and down I have included the names of persons whom I have tremendous respect for. Their influence on me however has been primarily environmental (and personal) and this is therefore a disclaimer that all words posted on this Blog/Website are mine and I alone am responsible for them. I say this with the greatest respect and affection to my friends.

Friday, December 7, 2012

GAG ORDERS IN HEALTH CARE SCENARIOS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY



We hear these excuses all the time. School Boards won't talk about complaints about a teacher because it will undermine childrens' privacy. Childrens' Aid can't be discussed because of client confidentiality. Doctors are unaccountable because we don't want to inadvertently identify patients private health information etc. etc.. All this is bullcrap expressly designed to protect the guilty not the innocent.

In this case yesterday's Waterloo Region Record advises us that "Gag order is wrong, care worker says". These are gag orders allegedly in place to protect client's confidentiality from Home Care Agency's employees publicly criticizing a patient's care. These gag orders were recently confirmed by the Waterloo Wellington Community Care Access Centre but in fact have little to do with patient confidentiality. There are many ways to protect a client's privacy while at the same time going public with concerns about an organization's problems and shortcomings.

NDP Health critic France Gelinas is one vocal critic of these gag orders and indeed states that they do not serve either the or the clients. They are there only to serve the health care agency and protect them from criticism. I really can't remember the last time I saw or heard any organization stand up and say that one of their policies or internal rules did not benefit the public or some third party remotely; it was just for their personal benefit.

No comments:

Post a Comment