Can I refuse to provide detailed medical history to day camp? I'm a leader in a church-sponsored children's group. We're going to attend a half-day &quot;day camp&quot; run by Boy Scouts of America. The activities will include short hikes, archery, bb guns, and paddling in a shallow pond. The camp is requesting from me (as a leader) a detailed medical history, including all past surgeries, all diagnoses, and full medication list. This is more personal information than I would like to provide and allow them to store. If I refuse to provide such detailed information, and rather state that I'm physically able to perform my role as a leader, does privacy law protect me from being turned away? For example, and employer can't ask an applicant for a list of disabilities, list of illnesses/operations, or medical history. But they can ask if an interviewee is able to perform the essential functions of the job, or to undergo a medical exam after a job is offered. (Source: University of New England, https://www.une.edu/sites/default/files/legal_interview_questions.pdf) Notes: I've recently done activities which involved much more risk--whitewater rafting and sea kayaking. The touring companies I went through didn't ask for nearly as much medical info. I've searched a bit through HIPAA explanations, and the closest example I've found has to do with employers requesting records. If I understand correctly, an employer has a right to require medical records if they feel they might need to make an ADA accommodation, or if job safety might be endangered.
You generally are not required to share your medical details with people you don't want to. That said, the camp would also not be required to allow people who don't comply to enroll. They can't force you to divulge your information, but you can't force them to let you come if you don't, either. HIPAA deals with the ability of healthcare providers to disclose medical information to parties who aren't the patient themselves - it would be a HIPAA violation for your doctor to disclose your information directly to the camp without your consent. HIPAA has absolutely no bearing on who you choose to disclose your own information to, however - you can disclose your own information to anyone you want.
This looks very iffy. It purports to require you to consent unconditionally to medical examination. It further purports to demand unredacted medical examination irrespective of relevance. According to http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/n/9/B11_1.pdf The Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 requires an employer to obtain written consent from a worker before applying to his or her doctor for a medical report. The Act lays down a procedure to be followed and gives workers the right to see the report, to request amendments or to withhold consent to the report being supplied. The relevant provision is available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/28/section/3 While there may be theoretical loopholes to this, an employer would be unwise not to follow the norms laid out above. It would be ethically questionable for a doctor to examine without consent (where a person has that capacity); or to rely on a contract entered into some time ago under different circumstances as evidence for consent. In practice an Occupational Health professional will almost certainly want to protect themselves professionally by establishing genuine informed consent first. The TUC has more guidance on the complexities of this: https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/confidentiality-and-medical-records The contract term may also be unenforceable under GDPR insofar as it is a) processing data reliant on consent which is not freely given and b) processing more sensitive data than is strictly necessary for the task. Now just because you have the right to refuse consent doesn't mean the employer will do nothing about it. The employer might attempt to refuse payment under an occupational sick pay scheme, to which some reasonable additional conditions may be attached, but a) so long as you notify them and get appropriate doctor's notes in the usual way (see https://www.gov.uk/statutory-sick-pay for details) your employment contract cannot invent additional conditions to prevent you receiving Statutory Sick Pay, and b) it is questionable whether submitting to a disclosure arrangement as described would be reasonable. The employer might attempt to discipline or dismiss you for refusing to comply. The reasonableness of this is likely to depend on the existence of exceptional circumstances. There may be cases where there is a statutory duty to monitor for specific exposures which give rise to a refusal to consent being a sufficient reason for dismissal (and I do not know for certain) although the contract wording given does not lead me to expect that this is the case here. In the absence of such a reason, any detriment might lay them open to a claim of victimisation of an employee asserting their rights. If the employer takes any such detrimental action, you would likely need to submit a grievance and be willing to pursue to Tribunal to sort it out. If you are currently being required to submit to an examination under this term, seek advice without delay from your union representative. If you did not have the prior presence of mind to join a union, a solicitor specialising in employment law may be able to give advice (for which you should expect to pay). Having said all that, I notice the term does not specify that the employer may insist on who does the medical examination... I do wonder if you could meet this requirement by simply visiting your own GP, who will presumably be bound by the legislation above (definitely get advice before trying to use this!).
If the question asks, "did you do X" where X is or includes a crime that you could be criminally prosecuted for, you can invoke the 5th amendment in refusing to answer that. I have seen that done and seen that objection to the question sustained in court. However, if admitting to X would provide only civil liability, then the 5th would not apply. At trial, you may also have to take care not to give direct testimony on things that are so closely related that you "open the door" to being required to answer that question. For example, you can't say "I don't owe because I did X" and then expect to not have to answer "So just to be clear, did you do X?" Also, depending on context, invoking the 5th might cause a jury to view your testimony more skeptically (cpast points out that "For civil cases, adverse inferences based on pleading the fifth are totally okay"), and if that's going to come up you should ask your attorney about whether or not it'd be a good idea strategically.
There are circumstances in which medical ethics historically authorized treating physicians to defer sharing information with patients or even to mislead them in their best interests medically, although the scope of what is considered ethical in that regard is narrowing. But in the fact pattern described in the quoted material there is no plausible way that this withholding of information could be justified. If it was intentional (or for that matter, even if it was negligent) there could be grounds for tort liability for harm caused as a result (although causation and damages are hard to prove). On the other hand, just because it could give rise to tort liability, doesn't imply that the action is necessarily a crime, at least without some kind of motive other than random spite to intentionally provide a false result. However, it is quite difficult to come up with a believable reason that this would happen to someone at random. If the person taking the test bribed someone to provide a false result, which is plausible, that is one thing, but just doing it randomly really doesn't make any sense. The fact pattern provided sounds like it doesn't include the &quot;full story.&quot; Why keep records of the actual test results (or for that matter why do the actual tests at all) if you are merely going to intentionally provide a false negative?
In general property owners and employers can impose any rules on their property and employees (respectively) that are not prohibited by law. Granted, there are extensive statutes and regulations to protect "employee rights." I have not heard of protections that include "possession of prescribed medications," but that does not mean they don't exist in your jurisdiction. If you really want to know whether you have a legal right as an employee, and you can't find it in written law or regulation, you would have to consult regulators or employment law attorneys in your jurisdiction. (As a practical matter, of course, it might make sense to first find out whether one's employer wants to assert a policy infringing the right in question.)
I know of no legal restrictions on using the title of Doctor in the United states. I know next to nothing about Canadian law and can't speak on that. Falsely claiming to have a license to practice medicine is probably illegal, depending on circumstances, and practicing medicine without a license is most certainly illegal, and there a numerous federal and state laws that would apply. But simply styling one's self as Dr. is unlikely to be held by a court as a claim to hold a medical license, or a particular degree. It's, of course, misleading and generally frowned to use the Dr. prefix unless one has earned an MD or PhD. Some holders of honorary doctorates use it as well, though some debate whether that's acceptable or not.
There is no state that requires you to show ID to obtain medical care. To the extent that this is done it is done at the behest of whoever is paying for the care to determine that you are someone who is authorized to benefit from this payment, and not an imposter, or as a matter of policy of the doctor. (An exception to this general rule applies when one wants to pick up a prescription for a controlled substance or a Sudafed product, where you must indeed show ID to show that your name matches a prescription or to insure that the right name is entered into the Sudafed database.) It might be more convenient for the doctor in terms of collection of bad debt, insurance policy claims (where an insurance card would normally be required, at least), protection against fraud claims from an insurer, and medical record keeping to have a name, so a doctor might make it a policy to require ID, but it is not required by law (except where a government benefit provider like Medicaid or Medicare is involved and has a regulation requiring it). For example, in the Las Vegas shooting, where there wasn't time to process paperwork, hospital triage officials simply assigned an alias to every incoming patient and wrote it in marker on their body to keep the medical records straight, and to allow that alias to track medical costs to be billed when the time came to get the proper intake paperwork filled out and the file sent to the accounting department. There are also other circumstances that do not involve emergency treatment (e.g. STD testing, methadone treatment at free clinics, and clinical trials) where an alias rather than a true name is sometimes used to keep track of patients.
They can ask, but there is nothing in law - that I can find - which obligates an answer. (There may be some exceptions that require a previous employer to provide a reference which might include this detail, but that does not appear relevant here.) As an aside, there is an ongoing #EndSalaryHistory campaign by the Fawcett Society which is focused on equal pay and sexual equality in the workplace, and they are calling on employers to: stop asking salary history questions...