Proposed changes to PACE will remove the need for a judicial authority
soon,
I understand.

Where did you get this, Steve?

The proposals are he
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/oper...s/PACE-Review/

The previous consultation included a desire to "rationalise" the process
of obtaining a judicial warrant and the new version wants ways of
"reducing, where possible, administrative and bureaucratic process on
the police and on the courts" whilst at the same time "we do not propose
to make changes to the existing statutory structure" whatever that means.

There's a lot of very nasty stuff in the consultation, have a read.

On 15 Sep, 09:15, BobC wrote:
"A friend" who works for in the medical profession told me about a
patient who arrived for an appointment. He asked for his name, but as
he was foreign couldn't understand it, so asked him to spell it. In
response he offered his driving licence to copy it from.

But on seeing the licence, the picture was nothing like the person
presenting it. In fact not even the same skin colour!

I said "Well I assume you asked him to sit in the waiting room, while
you went and called the police!"
"Oh no we can't do anything like that, patient confidentiality means
we are not allowed to do anything about it".

This sounds balmy to me. This is surely important not only to the
authorities but also the doctor who will effectively be treating a
different person to who he thinks he is.

Does the goup feel this use of "patient confidentiality" is correct.
Discuss!

Many thanks for all your responses to my original post.
The answers seem all in favour of "my friend's" point of view and not
mine.
So I'll gracefully accept I was wrong.
Many thanks for clarifying the situation. That's what I was after.

BobC

" posted
Proposed changes to PACE will remove the need for a judicial
authority soon,
I understand.
Where did you get this, Steve?

The proposals are he
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/oper...s-pace-codes/P
ACE-Review/

The previous consultation included a desire to "rationalise" the
process of obtaining a judicial warrant and the new version wants ways
of "reducing, where possible, administrative and bureaucratic process
on the police and on the courts" whilst at the same time "we do not
propose to make changes to the existing statutory structure" whatever
that means.

There's a lot of very nasty stuff in the consultation, have a read.


I can't seem to open the PDF download. My reader says the file is
damaged (although I downloaded two copies and they are identical).

--
Les

Big Les Wade wrote:
" posted
Proposed changes to PACE will remove the need for a judicial
authority soon,
I understand.
Where did you get this, Steve?

The proposals are he
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/oper...s-pace-codes/P
ACE-Review/

The previous consultation included a desire to "rationalise" the
process of obtaining a judicial warrant and the new version wants
ways of "reducing, where possible, administrative and bureaucratic
process on the police and on the courts" whilst at the same time "we
do not propose to make changes to the existing statutory structure"
whatever that means.

There's a lot of very nasty stuff in the consultation, have a read.


I can't seem to open the PDF download. My reader says the file is
damaged (although I downloaded two copies and they are identical).

Are you using Firefox by any chance, Les?
I have the same problem, and there's a workaround.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
BobC wrote:
On 15 Sep, 09:15, BobC wrote:
"A friend" who works for in the medical profession told me about a
patient who arrived for an appointment. He asked for his name, but as
he was foreign couldn't understand it, so asked him to spell it. In
response he offered his driving licence to copy it from.

But on seeing the licence, the picture was nothing like the person
presenting it. In fact not even the same skin colour!

I said "Well I assume you asked him to sit in the waiting room, while
you went and called the police!"
"Oh no we can't do anything like that, patient confidentiality means
we are not allowed to do anything about it".

This sounds balmy to me. This is surely important not only to the
authorities but also the doctor who will effectively be treating a
different person to who he thinks he is.

Does the goup feel this use of "patient confidentiality" is correct.
Discuss!

Thanks for all the replies. They have all concentrated on the medical
side of it though, "should the doctor treat the patient".

What I was really getting at was, should he have reported to the
police the fact that someone was going around with a false/someone
else's driving licence?
If someone had presented that to me, I would have, but I'm not in the
medical profession.
As part of my work I do get presented with driving licences and have a
duty of confidentiality, but if someone tried to fool me by presenting
a clearly wrong one, the confidentiality would got out the window and
I'd report it!



What are you actually reporting? It isn't an offence to carry somebody
else's driving license.

Indeed & in exactly the same way that it's not an offence to carry someone
else's passport. But it is an offence to produce someone else's, or simply
fraudulent documents in attempr to show entitlement to drive, cross boarders
or obtain NHS services to which you are not entitled.

There can be no duty of patient confidentia;lly IMO until the identity of
the individual can be reasonably proven & that only needs to be done when
first registering with a GP's practice.

--
Joe Lee

"Joe Lee" invalid@noaddress wrote in message
...

Indeed & in exactly the same way that it's not an offence to carry someone
else's passport. But it is an offence to produce someone else's, or simply
fraudulent documents in attempr to show entitlement to drive, cross
boarders or obtain NHS services to which you are not entitled.

We don't know if we was doing that. As I've pointed out it is common for
GPs to treat patients unentitled to NHS at their own expense.

There can be no duty of patient confidentia;lly IMO until the identity of
the individual can be reasonably proven & that only needs to be done when
first registering with a GP's practice.

Nonsense. The patient is someone comming for your services, whether they
are a registered patient or not. It is common to treat someone without
being sure of their nationality - what if they are unconscious?

Steve Walker posted

Are you using Firefox by any chance, Les?

Yes.

I have the same problem, and there's a workaround.

Well, don't keep it to yourself

What is it - use IE?

I emailed the Home Office asking for suggestions, but of course they
haven't replied.


--
Les

"mert1639" wrote in message
...

"Joe Lee" invalid@noaddress wrote in message
...

Indeed & in exactly the same way that it's not an offence to carry
someone
else's passport. But it is an offence to produce someone else's, or
simply
fraudulent documents in attempr to show entitlement to drive, cross
boarders or obtain NHS services to which you are not entitled.

We don't know if we was doing that. As I've pointed out it is common for
GPs to treat patients unentitled to NHS at their own expense.

There can be no duty of patient confidentia;lly IMO until the identity of
the individual can be reasonably proven & that only needs to be done when
first registering with a GP's practice.

Nonsense. The patient is someone comming for your services, whether they
are a registered patient or not. It is common to treat someone without
being sure of their nationality - what if they are unconscious?

That is a totally different scenario to the one described by the OP.

Anyone found unconscious &/or in need of urgent medical treatment receives
it regardless of what may subsequently prove to be their status or
identity - & long may it remain so.

--
Joe Lee

Big Les Wade wrote:
Steve Walker posted

Are you using Firefox by any chance, Les?

Yes.

I have the same problem, and there's a workaround.

Well, don't keep it to yourself

I have no problem with the link I gave using Firefox and Adobe Reader on
Windows, I don't try to download the document and just let it open in a
browser window.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:00:13 +0100, "Joe Lee" invalid@noaddress
wrote:


"mert1639" wrote in message
...

"Joe Lee" invalid@noaddress wrote in message
...

Indeed & in exactly the same way that it's not an offence to carry
someone
else's passport. But it is an offence to produce someone else's, or
simply
fraudulent documents in attempr to show entitlement to drive, cross
boarders or obtain NHS services to which you are not entitled.

We don't know if we was doing that. As I've pointed out it is common for
GPs to treat patients unentitled to NHS at their own expense.

There can be no duty of patient confidentia;lly IMO until the identity of
the individual can be reasonably proven & that only needs to be done when
first registering with a GP's practice.

Nonsense. The patient is someone comming for your services, whether they
are a registered patient or not. It is common to treat someone without
being sure of their nationality - what if they are unconscious?

That is a totally different scenario to the one described by the OP.

Anyone found unconscious &/or in need of urgent medical treatment receives
it regardless of what may subsequently prove to be their status or
identity - & long may it remain so.

Anyone turning up at a GP's surgery and asking for treatment as a
temporary patient gets it, too. No question of requiring them to prove
their identity arises. And medical confidentiality applies in both
cases.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"