24
   

Passenger Plane Crashes in French Alps.

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 06:48 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
The list of reportable diseases have to be reported to the government health dept.
That's different here as well: they are reported to the district's health department (or that of a city, if that city is on the same administrational level as districts.) This might be different in other German states, but here's about mine (Düsseldorf being the state capital).
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Ionus wrote: No, the problem is a Doctor has no legal requirement to report any illness to his company .
Walter Hinteler wrote: physicians have no right at all to report any illness to the employer.

Ahh...Walt...I said the same thing as you .
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 07:59 am
@Ionus,
I do think that there's a huge difference between "no legal requirement" and "no right". At least here.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Here, physicians have no right at all to report any illness to the employer.


are they required to report any to a government agency?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:22 am
@ehBeth,
The employee has to report a couple of illnesses herself/himself to employer - all those which might be dangerous to others.

Physicians have to report to the local health department a couple of illnesses, either anonymously (like e.g. AIDS, HIV, plasmodium/malaria) or with the name of the patient (nearly all dangerous infections). (There are slight difference from state to state.)
The Federal law (in German) >here< (§6 - §15) (not official English version (pdf-data, and not the latest version of the law)
The local health department reports it to the state ministry ... (There are special regulations/by laws for this as well)
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:48 am
@Walter Hinteler,
That was what I was getting at with my posts about that yesterday, that the doctor should inform the airline personnel staff who assign flights. I asked aren't the doctors airline doctors, not knowing. This morning I understand that it is (I assume) a regular psychiatrist or similar that was sending the patient sick notes to the patient.

Now I see Walter's post, which to me clarifies the problem into 'where were the aeromedical examiners'. I'm guessing they did examine but maybe not often and that he probably hid his fearful situation, and that there was at least a lapse re communication between hospital doctors and the airline doctors (if there were any of those).
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:52 am
@ossobuco,
Sorry, I posted that a few minutes ago before reading all the last bunch of posts.

What a quandary this all is.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:54 am
@Walter Hinteler,
ah ok

it's a little broader here. if someone is thought to be of danger to others, there is a requirement to report that to the authorities - usually the police. the police would then determine if it needed to be reported elsewhere - employer/family/school etc

it happens quite rarely but the obligation to report is there
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
I do think that there's a huge difference between "no legal requirement" and "no right". At least here.
Yes, you're right there is a huge difference . Our doctors are not allowed to allow a crime to be committed or any lives to be endangered by not reporting a matter, but it would have to be to the Police not the employers . That is the whole basis of reporting certain diseases . It doesnt amount to "no right" here because under our privacy laws the patient could sue the doctor but he may have good reasons and thus a good defence as it is not stated that he must not...but you have already pointed out that difference .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 08:57 am
@ehBeth,
note to self, next time-- take a careful look at the plane flight crew and ask them where they plan to take their next vacation.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 09:01 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
'm guessing they did examine but maybe not often and that he probably hid his fearful situation, and that there was at least a lapse re communication between hospital doctors and the airline doctors (if there were any of those).
Pilots have to get examinations on a regular basis according to EU- and German law.

Normal visits at doctor's or hospital stays have to be reported by the pilot himself. Or, he can allow his doctor to send the reports to the aeromedical examiner.
A proper airline doctor (or doctor at any other company) certainly has the same duty to treat medical records as any other. But it's not only me who has there some doubts. (That's one of the reasons, many companies use private "outside" centres for their company doctor service.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 09:06 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
it's a little broader here. if someone is thought to be of danger to others, there is a requirement to report that to the authorities - usually the police. the police would then determine if it needed to be reported elsewhere - employer/family/school etc
Police isn't engaged here at all. (Well, they might be: when sealing off a house etc after an infection, for instance. But such would be within their normal duties.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 09:08 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Our doctors are not allowed to allow a crime to be committed or any lives to be endangered by not reporting a matter, but it would have to be to the Police not the employers . That is the whole basis of reporting certain diseases . It doesnt amount to "no right" here because under our privacy laws the patient could sue the doctor but he may have good reasons and thus a good defence as it is not stated that he must not...but you have already pointed out that difference .
I've quoted the paragraph of our criminal law earlier. Of course, privacy law matters as well - but as for the doctor etc, it is a criminal act.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 09:21 am
@Ionus,
When it can be treated.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 12:16 pm
One has to wonder if Tomato Andy was being treated for an anger problem. One theory is that this was his version of going postal.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 12:28 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

ah ok

it's a little broader here. if someone is thought to be of danger to others, there is a requirement to report that to the authorities - usually the police. the police would then determine if it needed to be reported elsewhere - employer/family/school etc

it happens quite rarely but the obligation to report is there

I was reading a 30 year aviation expert saying that he has never once become aware of a pilot self reporting for mental problems. He said that a couple of airlines even offer the carrot of a year paid time off for treatment but it has not worked.

While we dont yet know what was up with Tomato Andy it is clear that we dont have good systems in place to sustain the mental health of pilots nor to catch problems early.

Edit: back in the day almost all pilots started out in the military, their resilience had been often tested and improved long before they ever hit commercial aviation. Now that this is often not the case the airlines need to adjust.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 12:42 pm
Haltern, the town which lost 16 pupils and two teachers, get a lot of support from Lommel/Belgium.

The reason is quite simple: the Sierre coach crash, three years ago, 16 primary school children from Lommel were among the 28 killed, the coach hadhad no technical failures, the driver was not driving under the influence and was not breaking the speed limit ... ...
Most of the Belgian parents believe, the driver committed suicide.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 12:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
Sounds like you no longer think he's a terrorist, so why not just admit it?

Three little words.

"I was wrong."
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 01:14 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Sounds like you no longer think he's a terrorist, so why not just admit it?

Three little words.

"I was wrong."


When we find out what happened I may or I may not be saying "I was wrong"....probably not though because I never claimed it was terrorism, I said it was "almost certainly" terrorism. You do know the difference, right?

I will say that that lack of competence and a follow on anger is much more likely to be the cause then depression. This guy seems like a romantic dreamer who could not deliver the goods day in and day out, and was on his way to being washed up at 30. The disconnect between his dreams/fantasies and his reality would in this case be the driving force, not depression, not a chemical problem.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 01:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
I do know the difference, politicians use it to weasel out of promises all the time, just like you're using it to weasel out of admitting you were wrong.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 09:05:40