Doctors are a lot to blame giving sick certs.
A GP's primary role is to treat sick people: its not to act as an industrial relations arbitrator in my opinion.
Doctors are a lot to blame giving sick certs.
A GP's primary role is to treat sick people: its not to act as an industrial relations arbitrator in my opinion.
But if a patient requests one then a GP would be open to a liable action if they refused to issue one...
very true, or how would the doctor who refused to issue a cert feel if the person when to work and had an accident through illness, or fell down dead!On the face of it I agree and a GP certainly shouldn't be promoting the issuing of a sick cert. But if a patient requests one then a GP would be open to a liable action if they refused to issue one...
With respect, this is nonsense. As an accountant, over the years I have turned down many requests to certify stated 'earnings' that were unsupported by evidence. There is no question whatsoever that any such refusal could be deemed as libel.But if a patient requests one then a GP would be open to a liable action if they refused to issue one...
Using that logic everyone who ever presents at a GP's surgery should get a cert. The GP should use their judgement and make a diagnosis based on medical requirement, not based on what they think they need to do to keep their customer/ make an easy €50.very true, or how would the doctor who refused to issue a cert feel if the person when to work and had an accident through illness, or fell down dead!
very true, or how would the doctor who refused to issue a cert feel if the person when to work and had an accident through illness, or fell down dead!
with respect, you can hardly compare the two professions!With respect, this is nonsense. As an accountant, over the years I have turned down many requests to certify stated 'earnings' that were unsupported by evidence. There is no question whatsoever that any such refusal could be deemed as libel.
with respect, you can hardly compare the two professions!
Sorry I don't understand what you are getting at?
With respect, this is nonsense. As an accountant, over the years I have turned down many requests to certify stated 'earnings' that were unsupported by evidence. There is no question whatsoever that any such refusal could be deemed as libel.
As a doctor you would be liable if you refused to certify a patient who claimed they are sick and then went on to injure themselves at work..
Well you can ask for evidence to back up claims as an accountant. If I go to a Doctor with a serious Migraine, what is he going to ask me for apart from a list of symptoms. Is it then up to the Doctor to call me a liar?
Or back trouble? Not everyone looking for a cert is lying about their problems.
Well you can ask for evidence to back up claims as an accountant. If I go to a Doctor with a serious Migraine, what is he going to ask me for apart from a list of symptoms. Is it then up to the Doctor to call me a liar?
Or back trouble? Not everyone looking for a cert is lying about their problems.
No you wouldn't. End of.
You might not liable from a legal point of view but they are open to professional mis-conduct cases if they just ignore a Patients complaints and refuse to issue a cert.
Except that declining to issue a cert is not tantamount to calling anyone a liar.
It pretty much is unless you are absolutely sure that someone is fit for work and is not suffering like they say.