In Canada is it legal for a doctor not to be able to do something they should know? This is a strange question. A few years ago I was a victim of a crime and I had been feeling bad about it. I go to University and once was told it's a good idea to make use of the counselors there while they're free. I went to see a counselor who said he thinks I have autism as I've been perseverating over a past event and seemed to not be doing well socially (for example when he asked me if I had any romantic interests, "I didn't clearly answer the question"). He told me to seek one of the university psychiatrists. I tried, but found out the psychiatrists weren't comfortable with diagnosing adult autism because they hadn't done it in a while. Is it legal for a doctor not to see someone because they don't feal skilled enough to help them (in an area they're supposed to be)? Is it legal for a psychiatrist to not see someone who thinks they may have autism? Is it legal for the councillor to make such a stupid statement that I have autism because I don't have a girl friend :P Just to be clear the psychiatrists did "refuse" to see me as they didn't feel they new how to diagnose autism. I find this hard to believe, isn't that like saying you went to the dentist to have a cavity fixed but he didn't know how to do it (I know this is illegal as a dentist is required to know how to treat, at least basic, cavities in order to hold a dental licence). Autism isn't a rare mental illness so I would guess a psychiatrist needs to know about it to hold his licence?
Doctors are obliged to act in the best interest of their patients. If it would be in your best interest to see another doctor (due to the doctor being out of practice for that particular diagnosis), your current doctor would be obligated to tell you and refuse treatment. The physician‑patient relationship is fiduciary in nature and certain duties arise from that special relationship of trust and confidence. These include the duties of the doctor to act with utmost good faith and loyalty[.] MvInerney v. MacDonald Now, onto your question about the counselors assessment; probably not worth it's weight in salt. They likely have little to no training regarding diagnostic medicine and are by no means an expert.
There is a clinical difference between insane and mentally ill. An insane person is "so irrational in their behavior, or so unable to control it - so unlike 'us'" that they are not criminally liable (from earlier in the chapter). Mental illness is "substantial disorder of thought or mood that substantially impairs judgement ..." (from near your link). Clearly this is a subtle clinical distinction and will hinge on the expert evidence and the applicable law.
I don't believe Canada uses the public official/figure distinction. American defamation law uses the distinction to determine whether to require proof of actual malice, but Canada does not require proof of actual malice. Canadian defamation law has a lot of other parallels to American defamation law, though, especially in terms of privilege. I'd expect the University could claim any of several available privileges, including truth, qualified privilege, and fair comment. And because it's a government institution, it's conceivable that it might even claim absolute privilege, though I definitely don't know enough about their interpretations of the privilege to say one way or another. For a broad primer on defamation law in Ontario, you can check out this report from the Law Commission of Ontario.
australia It's dishonest. Dishonesty is not, in general, illegal. Dishonesty is illegal when it is used to obtain someone else's property or financial advantage through fraud. It's also illegal if it's part of a statement made when applying for an authorisation or benefit. It's potentially misleading. Misleading people is not, in general, illegal. Misleading is illegal when it takes place in trade or commerce. It gives you a title you don't hold. Claiming a title you don't hold is not, in general, illegal Claiming a title you don't hold is illegal if it is a protected title under Australian law. For example, there are protected titles under the National Health Practionioners Registration Scheme: "medical practitioner" is a protected title; "doctor" isn't. Further, holding yourself out to be able to practice in certain professions when you are not (e.g. law, engineering in some states etc.) is illegal. Context matters Putting on a white gown, wearing a stethoscope and calling yourself "doctor" when attending a fancy dress party is not illegal. Doing it to angle for a free upgrade on your airline ticket is.
Basically, it is up to the court. The relevant law is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). You don't give much in the way of specifics, but it sounds like you confessed something to the police at the side of the road immediately after the accident, and now wish to dispute that confession. If you are taken to court and the police want to introduce your confession as evidence then you (through your lawyer) can ask the court to rule it out. You may be able to do so on a number of grounds. Was the confession properly recorded at the time? Were you treated in an oppressive manner, such that you felt you had to say what the police wanted to hear. Did you think you might get more favourable treatment if you said what the police wanted? For instance, did you think you might be allowed to go home once they were satisfied? Were you given a proper rest, or were you in a mental state that might cause you to say things without understanding the consequences (it sounds like this would be your main argument, but consider the others too). [Edit] If you needed medical treatment that would also be relevant. Were you properly cautioned (that speech beginning "You do not have to say anything...") before the police asked you questions. If you think you may be facing criminal charges then you should get yourself a lawyer sooner rather than later. A lawyer will know all about this and be able to navigate the relevant legal processes on your behalf. A bit of background: back in the 1970s the police frequently attributed incriminating statements to suspects when arrested, such as "Its a fair cop, guv", or "Who ratted on us?". The rules in PACE were made to stop such "verballing".
You may not assault a violator, you may notify the authorities. If your state has passed a law making it a felony to be outside without a mask, you can perform a citizen's arrest (but no state has such a law). So you cannot take the law into you own hands, and you run the risk of being arrested on felony assault charges if you do. There is always a significant risk that you are wrong about whether the order applies to a particular individual. You can always file a lawsuit, but you'd be in highly-experimental legal territory in terms of succeeding, specifically the claim that the person endangered your health (you can't sue on behalf of others, except e.g. as a parent on behalf of harm done to a child). For instance, nobody has successfully sued another person for going out in public having the flu on the grounds that they unreasonably put plaintiff at risk. You would have to experiment with that argument, to show that going out with a mask is reasonable and going out without a mask is unreasonable.
A medical practitioner may use whatever methods s/he thinks proper and appropriate, subject to the limits of malpractice law, and to the right of the patient (or patient's parent or guardian for a child) to give informed consent to any procedure or treatment. A patient can not insist on a treatment or method that the doctor or dentist does not wish to perform, having only the right to seek another practitioner. Nor is a practitioner required to use only procedures covered by insurance, unless bound by contract to do so (as may be the case with some &quot;in-network&quot; or HMO agreements). Again, the patient is free to seek treatment elsewhere. So the parent could insist that the dentist not use &quot;conscious sedation&quot; by withholding consent, the dentist may then refuse to treat at all, unless perhaps this was an emergency situation not allowing the parent to seek another treatment venue.
That release needs to be provided in writing to each legal entity (read: office) that provides you with medical care. Providing the release verbally (ie: 'I say that my assistant speaks for me') does not cut it; the offices that agreed are technically in jeopardy of some hefty fines and are just trusting you won't turn around and report them. Most offices are going to have their own forms for this and won't accept some generic letter that you write up, sign, and send all of them. Have your assistant call each office and ask for them to fax over a copy of their release form. List your assistant as an authorized contact, sign it, and send it back to them.