tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post5558307940166721002..comments2007-09-29T10:42:01.415+02:00Pierre de Voshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17861888910368295788noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-46339989613385633192007-09-29T10:42:00.000+02:002007-09-29T10:42:00.000+02:00Ooops fancy that - that China trip took so much Out Of me, those homeless people prayed for me when I got back...<BR/><BR/>Slippery story this <A HREF="http://o3ooo.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">O3 Club</A><BR/><BR/>sadly again tax money not going where the health is required!Africannabishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09773477518487670174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-26771172291806065172007-09-29T08:16:00.000+02:002007-09-29T08:16:00.000+02:00Mean time the impartial media / newspapers - happily accept payment from the high-handed morality of the DOH... for their propaganda.<BR/><BR/>Yes the media does create perceptions. Funny that you can buy perceptions if the bloody media won't carry your viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>You know fuckit - let the taxpayer pay.Africannabishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09773477518487670174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-59766103261798264942007-09-28T18:36:00.000+02:002007-09-28T18:36:00.000+02:00Hopefully we will find the judge that will be able and willing to do that....Pierre de Voshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17861888910368295788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-72046386917809910512007-09-26T23:16:00.000+02:002007-09-26T23:16:00.000+02:00Pierre, is it even necessary to go so far as to say that s. 14 is unconstitutional? <BR/> <BR/>If one, like the DOH, insists on literally interpreting s. 14, it generates plainly silly results. The section states that “all information concerning a user, including information relating to health status, treatment, or stay in a health establishment, is confidential.” A “user” is defined as s. 1 as “the person receiving treatment in a health establishment.”<BR/><BR/>Suppose you visit your brother who had been in hospital for a while (a “user”). You would not be entitled to later report to your mother that he had asked that she go feed his cat the next morning. That is because, read in isolation, the “plain meaning” of s. 14 leaves no room for (a) the conveying of “information” that has nothing to do with medical treatment; (b) implied consent of the “user”; (c) whether the “information” is, of its nature, personal.<BR/><BR/>The principles of interpretation tell us to avoid readings that generate patently absurd results. Guided by the what one can deduce was the intent of the legislator here, the parameters of common-law doctor-patient confidentiality, and the privacy values in the constitution, it should not be difficult to develop a sensible interpretation of s. 14 that would not necessarily be unconstitutional.Michael Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04075293159079052802noreply@blogger.com