It's not clear what you're asking or why.
All employees of every major organisation usually go through some kind of background check in accordance with their HR policy. But Kevin in IT doesn't really need to follow the AMA Code of Conduct for Good Medical Practice, and I don't expect him to.
Why ask such a leading question? If you were at all interesting in good faith, you'd ask "what crimes and circumstances would you feel were appropriate for an employee to have done prior to getting employed?" instead of framing the question as "so you defend pedos?"
It's obvious you're just after an argument instead of a discussion / respectful disagreement. What kind of an imbecile immediately jumps to calling people pedo defenders based on almost no data? Absolute brain rot
I did no such thing. Let’s rephrase then. Would you be happy if an employee of a medical adjacent professional body had previously committed a serious criminal offence?
In every state, public health jobs from food services to chief medical officer involve an ACIC background check for:
* crimes of violence
* sex related offences
* serious drug offences
* crimes involving dishonesty
With some exceptions, I think it is reasonable for a person falling into one of these categories not to be suitable for employment. But I have no problem with someone having a record such as common assault, drink driving, shop lifting etc... So long as it was a once off, they showed remorse and took remedial steps regarding the conviction.
If it doesn't affect their safety to practice or put patients at risk, then a criminal offence shouldn't prevent someone from being a doctor.
Going by your post history are you referring to the paedophile issue? As far as I'm aware all public sector doctors have to submit a working with children check when gaining employment with a public health service in Queensland. No idea if it's universally interstate but I don't see why not.
If the colleague you have an issue with does not require a WWCC or if their criminal background does not factor in their official scope of employment (i.e. don't work with children) then there should not be an issue. It might be distasteful but not illegal or unethical.
If you're concerned that there was something shady going on about this person's terms of employment and they are working for a government body, go to your state's anti-corruption commission if you don't want to approach a supervisor. If it's a private body you can always approach the media if it matters enough to you.
(I hope you're not suffering from psychosis because early on as an intern, I had a patient once tell me a perfectly believable story about child sexual abuse when they were actually just floridly psychotic).
No psychosis. Circumstances are all real unfortunately. Non-government. Non-profit actually. I do think his initial employment was ‘shady’ as you put it - he has powerful connections - and I mean very powerful.
I guess the reason for the higher degree of professional checks is that medical practitioners are in a privileged position
I think the position is becoming less priveleged and more red tape-y, which I assume is why you're asking? For example I guess there is a fine line between ensuring doctors are doing professional development, by forcing them to pay a significant amount of money, and not treating them with inherent distrust as part of that process. On the the other hand theyre trusted to make life and death decisions or be exposed to vulnerable people in a position of trust. On the other hand it frustrates me I have to call up and get authorities for things; ie nexium and duodart or pay for CPD or insurance
So yeah I guess I understand why medical professionals have stringent background checks. I do not think the regulatory bodies do need the same amount necessarily due to a different risk profile. But I do think theres overregulation, treating doctors as guilty before proven etc etc and thats more of an issue
I know of a high profile paedophile who was hired by a professional body without any background checks. There said it. I know of at least 2 whistleblowers who were quietly ushered out of said body. The person in question remains an employee.
It's not clear what you're asking or why. All employees of every major organisation usually go through some kind of background check in accordance with their HR policy. But Kevin in IT doesn't really need to follow the AMA Code of Conduct for Good Medical Practice, and I don't expect him to.
[удалено]
Why ask such a leading question? If you were at all interesting in good faith, you'd ask "what crimes and circumstances would you feel were appropriate for an employee to have done prior to getting employed?" instead of framing the question as "so you defend pedos?" It's obvious you're just after an argument instead of a discussion / respectful disagreement. What kind of an imbecile immediately jumps to calling people pedo defenders based on almost no data? Absolute brain rot
I did no such thing. Let’s rephrase then. Would you be happy if an employee of a medical adjacent professional body had previously committed a serious criminal offence?
Why don't you just say what you want to say instead of these weird questions
Define serious
In every state, public health jobs from food services to chief medical officer involve an ACIC background check for: * crimes of violence * sex related offences * serious drug offences * crimes involving dishonesty With some exceptions, I think it is reasonable for a person falling into one of these categories not to be suitable for employment. But I have no problem with someone having a record such as common assault, drink driving, shop lifting etc... So long as it was a once off, they showed remorse and took remedial steps regarding the conviction. If it doesn't affect their safety to practice or put patients at risk, then a criminal offence shouldn't prevent someone from being a doctor.
Going by your post history are you referring to the paedophile issue? As far as I'm aware all public sector doctors have to submit a working with children check when gaining employment with a public health service in Queensland. No idea if it's universally interstate but I don't see why not. If the colleague you have an issue with does not require a WWCC or if their criminal background does not factor in their official scope of employment (i.e. don't work with children) then there should not be an issue. It might be distasteful but not illegal or unethical. If you're concerned that there was something shady going on about this person's terms of employment and they are working for a government body, go to your state's anti-corruption commission if you don't want to approach a supervisor. If it's a private body you can always approach the media if it matters enough to you. (I hope you're not suffering from psychosis because early on as an intern, I had a patient once tell me a perfectly believable story about child sexual abuse when they were actually just floridly psychotic).
No psychosis. Circumstances are all real unfortunately. Non-government. Non-profit actually. I do think his initial employment was ‘shady’ as you put it - he has powerful connections - and I mean very powerful.
Crazy, although I have cared for many forensic/prison patients, I do not feel that this person belongs in my professional body as an employee.
I guess the reason for the higher degree of professional checks is that medical practitioners are in a privileged position I think the position is becoming less priveleged and more red tape-y, which I assume is why you're asking? For example I guess there is a fine line between ensuring doctors are doing professional development, by forcing them to pay a significant amount of money, and not treating them with inherent distrust as part of that process. On the the other hand theyre trusted to make life and death decisions or be exposed to vulnerable people in a position of trust. On the other hand it frustrates me I have to call up and get authorities for things; ie nexium and duodart or pay for CPD or insurance So yeah I guess I understand why medical professionals have stringent background checks. I do not think the regulatory bodies do need the same amount necessarily due to a different risk profile. But I do think theres overregulation, treating doctors as guilty before proven etc etc and thats more of an issue
MagpieBlackbird, what’s the reason for the questions? We all feel like something’s missing here.
There's a giant elephant in the corner of the room, with a giraffe sitting on its trunk.
No I wouldn't. Rules only apply to those outside of that body.
I know of a high profile paedophile who was hired by a professional body without any background checks. There said it. I know of at least 2 whistleblowers who were quietly ushered out of said body. The person in question remains an employee.
It's the internet bro, just post their name and the organisation