# Denial of Access to MIR By Unit



## wonknu (22 Jan 2015)

I don't know if this is in the correct forum or not (mods feel free to move it if necessary)

Recently my unit has begun a policy whereby IOT go to the base hospital (MIR) we need to tell them the specific reason why we are going and if (in some cases depending on the duty missed) we don't come back with a physical limitation chit and we only have the "time stamp" chit, we receive administrative sanctions.  Building upon that, if your boss doesn't agree with the reason he/she has the ability to refuse your request to go to the MIR.

Furthermore, I have spoken with people who have had concerns regarding personal medical matters being forced to be revealed to their bosses IOT get treatment for them.

I have researched the privacy act (IRT giving up medical info to employers and such) and have tried looking up the QR&Os for CF medical services, however, I was told that no violations were being made in the former and I was unable to find anything useful in the latter.  Does anyone know of any information regarding this?

Am I taking things too seriously or is this an issue?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2015)

One word: redress of grievance.

Ok that's three words. Sorry


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2015)

Sounds like you are in a unit/base/installation/ship that has a high number of MIR Commandos and this may be an administrative step taken to reduce those numbers.


----------



## wonknu (22 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sounds like you are in a unit/base/installation/ship that has a high number of MIR Commandos and this may be an administrative step taken to reduce those numbers.



I would be lying if I said we had NO MIR commandos, however, from my experience (and my POV in regards to the overall CoC) I don't believe we have a huge problem with them.  Even if we did though, is it ethical/legal to make everyone adhere to this policy?  

Do I have a real case here or is this something I am blowing out of proportion? I am relatively new to the CAF and I am not quite sure. (in my second year right now).


----------



## ballz (22 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is in the correct forum or not (mods feel free to move it if necessary)
> 
> Recently my unit has begun a policy whereby IOT go to the base hospital (MIR) we need to tell them the specific reason why we are going and if (in some cases depending on the duty missed) we don't come back with a physical limitation chit and we only have the "time stamp" chit, we receive administrative sanctions.  Building upon that, if your boss doesn't agree with the reason he/she has the ability to refuse your request to go to the MIR.
> 
> ...



It is an issue, it's abuse of authority in my opinion, and a dangerous one at that. The CoC is not entitled to know why you went to the MIR or what the diagnosis is or anything like that*. All they need to know is that you went to the MIR at "x" time, left at "x" time, and if you have any MELs. Coming back with just a time chit doesn't mean you didn't have a legit reason for going. Hell, you could have eczema and have to get your prescription updated or something, you're not going to get MELs for it but that eczema sure ain't gonna cure itself. Someone could potentially go see someone about a mental health issue and get any MELs. So what is this CoC going to do? Put them on IC for coming back without MELs? Yes, that's exactly what we need going in the CAF right now /sarcasm.

*If you have a good CoC, keeping them in the loop on what's going on is a good idea, but they are not *entitled* to know.


----------



## wonknu (22 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> It is an issue, it's abuse of authority in my opinion, and a dangerous one at that. The CoC is not entitled to know why you went to the MIR or what the diagnosis is or anything like that*. All they need to know is that you went to the MIR at "x" time, left at "x" time, and if you have any MELs. Coming back with just a time chit doesn't mean you didn't have a legit reason for going. Hell, you could have eczema and have to get your prescription updated or something, you're not going to get MELs for it but that eczema sure ain't gonna cure itself. Someone could potentially go see someone about a mental health issue and get any MELs. So what is this CoC going to do? Put them on IC for coming back without MELs? Yes, that's exactly what we need going in the CAF right now /sarcasm.
> 
> *If you have a good CoC, keeping them in the loop on what's going on is a good idea, but they are not *entitled* to know.



I have spoken with my boss regarding this issue (brought up the privacy issue) and was told it came from "higher" (Company Comd level. i.e. a Maj) and I was essentially told to just follow the policy.


----------



## wonknu (22 Jan 2015)

I am still scouring the QR&Os at this moment, however, if anyone else has any ideas of where I can find documents pertaining to this I would really appreciate it.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2015)

I agree with ballz; and as he says, it is always a good idea/best to keep your CoC informed, but one point to remember is the confidentiality that you have between you and your doctor(s).




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> *If you have a good CoC, keeping them in the loop on what's going on is a good idea, but they are not *entitled* to know.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jan 2015)

You have 2 options. If the CoC has initiated this policy your grievance may be against the CO so that's a bit of a pickle. The other more intelligent here can tell you who you would address it too. The other option is ask to talk the the chief surgeon. I'd also keep all your documents and make copies of everything you send up the chain. 

I know for a fact you don't have to tell anyone why your going to the MIR. THe correct COA for the CoC if they feel there is abuse is to bring their concerns to the CoC within the MIR.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is in the correct forum or not (mods feel free to move it if necessary)
> 
> Recently my unit has begun a policy whereby IOT go to the base hospital (MIR) we need to tell them the specific reason why we are going and if (in some cases depending on the duty missed) we don't come back with a physical limitation chit and we only have the "time stamp" chit, we receive administrative sanctions.  Building upon that, if your boss doesn't agree with the reason he/she has the ability to refuse your request to go to the MIR.
> 
> ...



What unit is this?


----------



## wonknu (22 Jan 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> You have 2 options. If the CoC has initiated this policy your grievance may be against the CO so that's a bit of a pickle. The other more intelligent here can tell you who you would address it too. The other option is ask to talk the the chief surgeon. I'd also keep all your documents and make copies of everything you send up the chain.
> 
> I know for a fact you don't have to tell anyone why your going to the MIR. THe correct COA for the CoC if they feel there is abuse is to bring their concerns to the CoC within the MIR.



Thanks for the insight.  It is a directive issued by my OC (a Maj), or so I've been told, and not the entire unit


(sorry for the obscurity by the way.  Just trying to maintain PersSec and my own confidentiality)


----------



## wonknu (22 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> What unit is this?



I would rather not say in an open forum (maintaining my own persec and confidentiality), however, it is in the CFB Kingston area.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> Thanks for the insight.  It is a directive issued by my OC (a Maj), or so I've been told, and not the entire unit
> 
> 
> (sorry for the obscurity by the way.  Just trying to maintain PersSec and my own confidentiality)



Then the Major needs to be jacked up. Full stop.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> Recently my unit has begun a policy whereby IOT go to the base hospital (MIR) we need to tell them the specific reason why we are going and if (in some cases depending on the duty missed) we don't come back with a physical limitation chit and we only have the "time stamp" chit, we receive administrative sanctions.  Building upon that, if your boss doesn't agree with the reason he/she has the ability to refuse your request to go to the MIR.



First question; at what level is this 'unit policy' being imposed?  CO?  Is it in Routine/Standing Orders?  No?  Perhaps the CO isn't aware of it, and didn't authorize it. 



> Am I taking things too seriously or is this an issue?



As you wrote it here, IMO it's an issue.


----------



## wonknu (22 Jan 2015)

Thanks to everyone for their help.  I am going to be researching this more in the morning.  My view of the overall CoC is rather limited (given I am a new Pte) and therefore I might just be missing the big picture.  Like I said before, if anyone has any info pertaining to this I would very much appreciate being pointed in the right direction. 

Thanks to everyone.


----------



## 63 Delta (22 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> Thanks for the insight.  It is a directive issued by my OC (a Maj), or so I've been told, and not the entire unit
> 
> 
> (sorry for the obscurity by the way.  Just trying to maintain PersSec and my own confidentiality)



Cant believe what kind of supervisor would pass on this kinda of garbage. Not much of a leader if you dont stand up for the welfare of your own troops. 

And how can anyone possibly imagine they can enforce this. If you attempt to apply administrative action its going to get grieved. If you charge someone with disobeying the order what JAG is going to action it under the circumstances?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2015)

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> If you attempt to apply administrative action its going to get grieved.



I'd like to think any AdminO would advise the CofC 'this is a baddddddd idea', if trying to go for RMs, as an example.



> If you charge someone with disobeying the order what JAG is going to action it under the circumstances?



I'd like to think it wouldn't even make it to, or past, the DI stage.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2015)

The AJAG will either laugh til their stomach hurts......or call the unit up and ask "WTF are you smoking over there? Or are you chronically stupid?"

 :facepalm:


----------



## 63 Delta (22 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> Building upon that, if your boss doesn't agree with the reason he/she has the ability to refuse your request to go to the MIR.



Can you build upon this part? When you say refuse your request are you talking exclusively about the right to go to Sick parade for medical treatment? Or are you talking about in the middle of the day you suddenly realize you need to book your 4th dental cleaning in 3 months? I feel there is a difference between those scenarios.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> I would rather not say in an open forum (maintaining my own persec and confidentiality), however, it is in the CFB Kingston area.



If you don't tell anyone who/where you are from, we can't help you/investigate.  Aimlessly Screwing around the troops is something that really ticks me off FYI.


----------



## Occam (22 Jan 2015)

Try these:

CANFORGEN 039/08 Disclosure of Medical/Social Work Info to Commanding Officers
CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-20 Disclosure of Personal Health Information
CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-26 Unacceptable Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2015)

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> Can you build upon this part? When you say refuse your request are you talking exclusively about the right to go to Sick parade for medical treatment? Or are you talking about in the middle of the day you suddenly realize you need to book your 4th dental cleaning in 3 months? I feel there is a difference between those scenarios.



Valid


----------



## Tibbson (23 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Try these:
> 
> CANFORGEN 039/08 Disclosure of Medical/Social Work Info to Commanding Officers
> CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-20 Disclosure of Personal Health Information
> CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-26 Unacceptable Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information



I'd also be making a harassment complaint, especially considering this ad hoc policy is being applied to one Coy only.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I'd also be making a harassment complaint, especially considering this ad hoc policy is being applied to one Coy only.



I wouldn't go there just yet.

IMO it's a soldier's RIGHT to go on Sick Parade. The only codicile I have to that is that soldiers need to use that right responsibly. 
Perhaps a PD session with the officers and WOs with the Medical pers to review policy.......


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Jan 2015)

When I was an 18-year-old recruit in the RCA Depot, I woke up one morning with all sorts of sh.tty things wrong and asked one of the troops NCOs to let me go on sick parade. I was then berated as a malinger and warned that if I was not sick, I would be charged. As i had a temperature of 102, etc I got the Canadian Army's standard cure for all ills: 48 hrs excused duty and a bunch of pills that at least in size, would have been quire suitable for elephant suppositories.

There was a definite attitude that most troops who went on sick parade were malingering, and it went from the top down.

There also was a wide-spread belief that MOs always gave excused duty rather than weed out the malingerers and order the troops to get back on duty. (A subset, which in reflection has more holes than a screen door, is that a devious MIR commando could always outwit the MIR staff.)


----------



## MJP (23 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd like to think any AdminO would advise the CofC 'this is a baddddddd idea', if trying to go for RMs, as an example.
> 
> I'd like to think it wouldn't even make it to, or past, the DI stage.



Well I have a sneaking suspicion that he is army or at least at a unit that is mostly army so I would be surprised if there are Admin Os.  Generally the Pl/Tp Comds with guidance from the 2IC (and Coy Clerk dependent on Org) are the de facto Admin Os for their soldiers.  Which depending on their experience can mean they might not have the experience to realize that it is a bogus order or they might feel that they can't speak up for fear for their own careers.  Even if there was a dedicated Admin O, they are not the trained HR Log Os that you would experience in the RCAF.  They may or may not know all the ins and out of the million references we now have to use to make a decision in this risk adverse military.  


To the OP as many here have said, the policy to disclose a reason for going to MIR is pure junk.  A CoC's ability to monitor and ensure folks aren't abusing the system via "time stamps" isn't junk and can be legit although draconian if enforced religiously for all.  Admin measures or punishments for blank chits is pure junk.  You have some great references from the folks here to follow up with your CoC and express your concerns.  This wouldn't fly in any unit I have ever served with and while I have seen instances of things that you allude to pop up from time to time, it has quickly been corrected by various CoCs at all levels.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> When I was an 18-year-old recruit in the RCA Depot, I woke up one morning with all sorts of sh.tty things wrong and asked one of the troops NCOs to let me go on sick parade. I was then berated as a malinger and warned that if I was not sick, I would be charged. As i had a temperature of 102, etc I got the Canadian Army's standard cure for all ills: 48 hrs excused duty and a bunch of pills that at least in size, would have been quire suitable for elephant suppositories.
> 
> There was a definite attitude that most troops who went on sick parade were malingering, and it went from the top down.



I've tried, and so have others, to destigmatize the whole sick parade thing. It's a resource for soldiers to use whether they are physically ill or mentally ill. 
Yes, I've heard the brainwashed retards who verbalized the " MIR Commando" for legitimately ill and injured  troops.


----------



## medicineman (23 Jan 2015)

After being posted in Kingston for 7 years, I have an idea what unit(s) we're dealing with.  I remember having to sit in a locked room every afternoon for a month auditing Sick Parade registers and cross referencing nominal rolls, looking for patterns from a sub-unit of a major lodger unit in Kingston (cough, CFSCE, cough) due to abuses of authority within one of the squadrons that lead to an almost 100% sick parade rate within that sub unit leading to countless days of sick leave.  Most of the complaints, as one might guess, were MH related...

Anyway, a mere Major, unless even if they are a Commanding Officer, does not have the authority to make such, hmmm, silly policies.  He does have the right to demand that you check in with the duty staff to say you're going on Sick Parade so that you are accounted for, however, they don't have the right to know as to why you're going...you're allowed to volunteer that if you choose, but they really have no right to ask.  A Commanding Officer is allowed to discuss generalities of someone's condition with an MO or medical staff, but that is pretty much limited to what's in the aforementioned policies Occam brought forth.  Essentially, "Bloggins is broken, here's what they can and can't do and for how long".
  
I think the first time this Maj is subject to his/her own policy and has to divulge to the duty staff that they're going to go on Sick Parade because "I'm peeing razor blades and have a weird drip that won't go away", they'll rethink their policy...

MM

Edited for sleep deprivation messing up thought process


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Jan 2015)

When at CFSME  I tell my staff I have no issues with them going to the MIR all that I ask from them is that they inform me when they go and then to check in with me when they are released so I can see their chit/MEL and record it on their shadow file. To me the OP's CoC needs to shake their head....my   :2c:


----------



## TCM621 (23 Jan 2015)

The MIR CoC will have kittens if and when they find out about this. However, unless it's in writing it can always be denied. I would ask for where I could find the policy so I could QUOTE ensure I follow proper procedure. I'm still pretty new UNQUOTE. If you don't get one go about your merry way and see the doctor when you need to. There are hundreds of us on this board who are probably dealing with injuries that probably could have been fixed if we hadn't fallen for the "only malingerers and passes go to the MIR line". The medical system, to their credit "has realize the damage their part in that culture caused and will cause a huge ruckus if the CoC does not play by the rules. If they can not produce a policy in writing when you ask for it, there is nothing they can do legally or administratively.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jan 2015)

As others have said, you have an absolute right to seek care, and an absolute right to keep the contents of your visit confidential. 

There's any number of orders that prohibit the kind of treatment you allege. I would ask for a written copy of the directive. Failing that, if you need to go on sick parade then do so. If they want to charge you then let them. It will come out at trial.


----------



## wonknu (23 Jan 2015)

Thanks to everyone for confirming my suspicions about this policy.  I will definitely be looking into it further.  I did receive written confirmation of the policy and it appears to only be in place for certain days of the week (Depending on the duty missed).

To clarify it is for morning sick parade attendance.

I think a lot of you would be horrified (Or maybe not) if you knew what unit this was and what this kind of message to subordinates means for the future of the C.F.

Once again, thanks to all.


----------



## Pusser (23 Jan 2015)

Here's a QR&O that may be useful:

19.18 - *CONCEALMENT OF DISEASE*

An officer or non-commissioned member who is suffering or suspects he is suffering from a disease shall without delay report himself sick.

This is a Queen's Regulation and ORDER, which says you MUST see someone.  Note that it does not say you need additional approval from somebody else.

As a general rule over the last 30 years, I have found that instances of actual malingering are pretty rare.  Yes, there are folks who will fall to the ground screaming over a hangnail while others will want to continue working despite the missing limb ("it's only a flesh wound"), but most fall somewhere in between those extremes.  True malingerers usually have other character flaws as well (lazy, always complaining, etc) so the fact that they are always in MIR is only one of several indications that there is a problem.

I always try to make it clear to my subordinates that I would rather lose them for a few days while they get their illness or injuries tended to properly, than for a few months because they tried to "work through it" and only made it worse.  On more than one occasion, I have ordered "keeners" to go  home or to MIR to get themselves looked after.  Not going to MIR when you need to (or even think you need to ) is counter-productive.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> I think a lot of you would be horrified (Or maybe not) if you knew what unit this was and what this kind of message to subordinates means for the future of the C.F.


You'd be surprised at how much it takes to surprise some here  ;D

Good luck.


----------



## Sf2 (23 Jan 2015)

Your OC gave an unlawful order.

You are in no way obliged to follow it.  Go to sick parade.


----------



## Pusser (23 Jan 2015)

SF2 said:
			
		

> Your OC gave an unlawful order.
> 
> You are in no way obliged to follow it.  Go to sick parade.



Careful there.  Just because you think an order is unlawful does not mean you can just ignore it.  It must be manifestly unlawful to do that.

19.015 - LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS

Every officer and non-commissioned member shall obey lawful commands and orders of a superior officer.

(M)

NOTES

(A) The expression "superior officer" includes a non-commissioned member. (See article 1.02 - Definitions.)

(B)* Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful.*

(C) An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child.

(D) With respect to riots, subsection 32(2) of the Criminal Code (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter C-46) states:


"32. (2) Every one who is bound by military law to obey the command of his superior officer is justified in obeying any command given by his superior officer for the suppression of a riot unless the order is manifestly unlawful."


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Jan 2015)

medicineman said:
			
		

> a sub-unit of a major lodger unit in Kingston (cough, CFSCE, cough)



That, I can believe.  If the Maj who was there when I was in Kingston is still there.  He's an idiot.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> As others have said, you have an absolute right to seek care, and an absolute right to keep the contents of your visit confidential.
> 
> There's any number of orders that prohibit the kind of treatment you allege. I would ask for a written copy of the directive. Failing that, if you need to go on sick parade then do so. If they want to charge you then let them. It will come out at trial.



Unless they just give him a shit ton of extras for which there is no paper trail


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> When I was an 18-year-old recruit in the RCA Depot, I woke up one morning with all sorts of sh.tty things wrong and asked one of the troops NCOs to let me go on sick parade. I was then berated as a malinger and warned that if I was not sick, I would be charged. As i had a temperature of 102, etc I got the Canadian Army's standard cure for all ills: 48 hrs excused duty and a bunch of pills that at least in size, would have been quire suitable for elephant suppositories.
> 
> There was a definite attitude that most troops who went on sick parade were malingering, and it went from the top down.
> 
> There also was a wide-spread belief that MOs always gave excused duty rather than weed out the malingerers and order the troops to get back on duty. (A subset, which in reflection has more holes than a screen door, is that a devious MIR commando could always outwit the MIR staff.)



No cure all Cepacol?


----------



## DAA (23 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Try these:
> 
> CANFORGEN 039/08 Disclosure of Medical/Social Work Info to Commanding Officers
> CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-20 Disclosure of Personal Health Information
> CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-26 Unacceptable Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information





			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Here's a QR&O that may be useful:
> 
> 19.18 - *CONCEALMENT OF DISEASE*
> 
> ...



And I shall throw in CANFORGEN 128/03 if not already mentioned.  It would probably be much easier to voice these concerns with your local Health Care Providers.  A simple statement to the MO such as "I had to fully disclose my condition/illness to my CoC prior to being authorized to report here to the MIR for treatment."  I'm sure that would go over really well..........


----------



## Brasidas (23 Jan 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Unless they just give him a crap ton of extras for which there is no paper trail



Which has never happened at CFSCE, say after Standards declared a disciplinary action unjustified.

"Oh, he's not being _disciplined_. We just tasked him with duty for a couple weekends, as his name just happened to come in rotation."


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jan 2015)

Speaking from many years of bitter experience, there's UNLAWFUL, and there's  _unlawful nudge nudge, wink wink_.  The people telling you to ignore a direction and just go on your merry way are inviting you to paint a huge bullseye on your back.  Get all your refs and such in a row before you pick the hill you want to die on, there are many varied, and very imaginative punishments that aren't considered punishment.


----------



## stokerwes (23 Jan 2015)

Why hasn't his WO stepped in and stopped this? Senior NCO's are in place for a reason, to keep the Officers in check and remind them of the rules. This is a BS policy made by someone who is either unclear of the law or abusing their authority.
It severely p***es me off when I hear of WO's and higher not stepping in and telling the policy maker that this is wrong.
To just follow policy because its easier is just asking for many issues.
There are suggestion boxes in the MIR where you could anonymously describe your situation. These are allegedly looked at by the base surgeon.
Had a similar situation at another base and just told the MO the situation when I got there. Magically the policy went away a few days later and everyone could go to the MIR as long as CoC was informed etc.
Don't just go to the MIR and disregard this policy though as you will suffer and possibly be charged for being AWOL or some other charge. Follow it until you have it changed. 
Good luck


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2015)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> Why hasn't his WO stepped in and stopped this? Senior NCO's are in place for a reason, to keep the Officers in check and remind them of the rules. This is a BS policy made by someone who is either unclear of the law or abusing their authority.
> It severely p***es me off when I hear of WO's and higher not stepping in and telling the policy maker that this is wrong.
> To just follow policy because its easier is just asking for many issues.
> There are suggestion boxes in the MIR where you could anonymously describe your situation. These are allegedly looked at by the base surgeon.
> ...



Perhaps the stars have all aligned in this unit, where we have an officer that is accustomed to abusing their power, and Snr NCMs who are careerists, who have 'brown nosed' their way through the ranks.  It happens from time to time, where you will find weak leadership qualities on all levels of the CoC and kills units moral, which will take several rotations of key personnel to turn around.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2015)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> Why hasn't his WO stepped in and stopped this? Senior NCO's are in place for a reason, to keep the Officers in check and remind them of the rules. This is a BS policy made by someone who is either unclear of the law or abusing their authority.
> It severely p***es me off when I hear of WO's and higher not stepping in and telling the policy maker that this is wrong.
> To just follow policy because its easier is just asking for many issues.
> There are suggestion boxes in the MIR where you could anonymously describe your situation. These are allegedly looked at by the base surgeon.
> ...



One word "Jimmies" 

If this is from a Kingston area unit I would bet dollars to doughnuts its a Signals unit of some sort.  Nothing suprises me anymore after spending a few years working with these folks.  Individually some excellent people, as a branch it makes Log look organized, functional and well lead.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jan 2015)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> Don't just go to the MIR and disregard this policy though as you will suffer and possibly be charged for being AWOL or some other charge.



I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If they charge  him, it has to go to JAG. You can't just charge someone and hope it sticks. The elements of the offence have to be clearly articulated in the RDP.


----------



## MJP (23 Jan 2015)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That, I can believe.  If the Maj who was there when I was in Kingston is still there.  He's an idiot.



Oh that Maj...I mean there can only be one posted there right


----------



## Occam (23 Jan 2015)

I looked at the two CANFORGENs and CFHS Inst 5020-20 this morning, and they should be all the OP needs to keep in his back pocket.  I'll post them up if I can get a stable internet connection.

That said, I'll echo the sentiment that this should be handled by the MIR staff.  The minute they find out what's going on, I would expect a rocket to be fired to the CO advising him of what his (and his staff's) obligations and responsibilities are WRT medical info and patient confidentiality.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2015)

And they won't have to say who told them either


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2015)

CANFORGEN 039/08 CMP 018/08 131851Z FEB 08
DISCLOSURE OF MEDICAL/SOCIAL WORK INFO TO COMMANDING OFFICERS
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS: A. CANFORGEN 026/00 ADMHRMIL 016 181430Z FEB 00 
B. CFMO 8-02 (VERSION: CH 50 - 1988-03-24) 
C. QR O 19.18 
D. QR O CHAPTERS 4, 5 
E. PRIVACY ACT R.S.C. 1985 C.P-21 



REF A WAS ISSUED TO SUPPORT AND PROMOTE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND CO S REGARDING MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS (MEL) IN RESPECT TO CF PERSONNEL UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT AND TO PROVIDE GREATER CLARITY AND OPERATIONAL FOCUS. REF A IS CANCELLED EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DIRECTION. THIS CANFORGEN PROVIDES INTERIM GUIDANCE TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONCERNED PARTIES FOR THE EFFECTIVE SHARING OF INFORMATION 


HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS IN THE CF HEALTH SYSTEM HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO SERVICE PERSONNEL THEY SEE FOR TREATMENT AND TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. THEIR PRIMARY OBLIGATION TO SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN IS TO MAINTAIN THEIR HEALTH AND MENTAL WELL-BEING, PREVENT DISEASE, DIAGNOSE OR TREAT ANY INJURY, ILLNESS, OR DISABILITY AND FACILITATE THEIR RAPID RETURN TO OPERATIONAL FITNESS. THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS PRIMARY OBLIGATION TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS TO SUSTAIN OR RESTORE SERVICE PERSONNEL TO OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND DEPLOYABILITY. IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THIS WILL REQUIRE THEM TO REPORT A SERVICE PERSON S MEL TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. SUCH REPORTING ENSURES PERSONNEL CAN PERFORM THEIR DUTIES SAFELY, RELIABLY, EFFICIENTLY AND AT NO RISK OF AGGRAVATING AN EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION. THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON SERVICE PERSONNEL MEL SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES 


FIRST, CF PERSONNEL MUST HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE CF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO OPENLY DISCLOSE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR EFFECTIVE TREATMENT. WITHOUT THIS DETAILED INFORMATION THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER CANNOT OFFER THE BEST POSSIBLE TREATMENT AND THIS COULD JEOPARDIZE THE SERVICE PERSON S HEALTH. THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND WORK ENVIRONMENT MUST RESPECT MEL BOTH IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING THE INDIVIDUAL S LIMITATIONS AND MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE CONFIDENTIALITY 


SECOND, COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE CHARGED WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, CAPABILITY AND THE WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THEIR SUBORDINATES. IN DISCHARGING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES A CO MUST ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE ASSIGNED ONLY THOSE DUTIES THAT CAN BE PERFORMED SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY. TO PROPERLY EMPLOY A SAILOR, SOLDIER, AIRMAN OR AIRWOMAN AND ENSURE THE CONDITIONS FOR HIS/HER SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT AND RETURN TO FULL DUTY A CO REQUIRES INSIGHT ON MEL AND PROGNOSIS. THIS MAY BE FACILITATED BY ADDITIONAL NON-CLINICAL INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE PROVIDED IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF APPROPRIATE DUTIES TO THE SERVICE PERSON 


THIRD, HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS HAVE A PROFESSIONAL DUTY TO SAFEGUARD PATIENT MEDICAL INFORMATION FROM INAPPROPRIATE DISCLOSURE. PATIENTS DISCUSS WITH HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS INTIMATE AND PERSONAL DETAILS. HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS ARE PARTICULARLY COGNIZANT OF AND SENSITIVE TO THE NEED TO MAINTAIN A SERVICE PERSON S CONFIDENCE WHEN CONFERRING WITH THEM ON HEALTH CARE ISSUES. HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS MUST EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF SUPPORTING OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS WHILE RESPECTING THE LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN WHICH THEY WORK 


THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AND THE CO IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE CF MISSION. WHILE SPECIFIC INFORMATION SUCH AS DIAGNOSIS AND DETAILED TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISCLOSED, AN OPEN DIALOGUE TO SHARE RELEVANT INFORMATION ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS IS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE CF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND TO ENSURE THAT NEITHER THE INDIVIDUAL NOR THE MISSION IS COMPROMISED. SHARING APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AND TREATING THAT INFORMATION IN A SENSITIVE RESPECTFUL MANNER FOR THE GOOD OF THE SOLDIER, SAILOR, AIRMAN OR AIRWOMAN AND CF OPERATIONAL EFFECT IS A JOINT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SERVICE PERSON, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AND CO. THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO FULFILL THAT OBJECTIVE 


EVERY MBR HAS THE FOLLOWING DUTIES: 


TO SELF REPORT AS SICK WITHOUT DELAY WHEN SUFFERING FROM OR SUSPECTING HE OR SHE MIGHT BE SUFFERING FROM A DISEASE IAW REF C 


TO REPORT ANY MEDICALLY BASED INABILITY TO PERFORM DUTIES TO HIS/HER CO 


TO INFORM HIS/HER CO OR OTHER SUPERIORS WHEN REQUIRED ANY MEL SPECIFIED BY HIS/HER HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AND 


TO FOLLOW THOSE MEL 


EVERY CO HAS THE FOLLOWING DUTIES: 


TO ASSIST HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS IN UNDERSTANDING THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS THAT NORMALLY APPLY TO A PARTICULAR SERVICE PERSON, SO THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE MEL CAN BE ASSIGNED 


TO INFORM HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHEN OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXISTS WITHIN THE UNIT THAT THE MEMBER MAY BE ABLE TO PERFORM WHILE UNDER MEL 


TO INFORM HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, WHEN ASSIGNED MEL APPEAR VAGUE OR INAPPROPRIATE IN THE PARTICULAR WORKING ENVIRONMENT 


TO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT IMPOSED MEL WITH THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER OR BASE SURGEON AS REQUIRED 


IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MO, TO IDENTIFY THOSE UNIT SUPERVISORS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON MEL AND 


TO ENSURE INFORMATION ABOUT A SERVICE PERSON S MEL IS HANDLED IN CONFIDENCE WITHIN THE UNIT WITHOUT DISCLOSURE TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 


EVERY HEALTH CARE PROVIDER HAS THE FOLLOWING DUTIES: 


PROVIDE CLEAR, DETAILED AND RELEVANT MEL INFORMATION ON SICK REPORT FORM CF2018. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, THE TYPE AND DURATION OF WORK THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CAN OR CANNOT DO, IN VIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL S MEDICAL CONDITION. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE PATIENT WOULD BENEFIT FROM AN OPEN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE MO AND THE PATIENT S CHAIN OF COMMAND WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCLOSURE OF CLINICAL INFORMATION, THE PATIENT S WRITTEN CONSENT TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE SOUGHT 


TO DISCLOSE TO THE CO, LIMITATIONS ON THE SERVICE PERSON S ABILITY TO USE WEAPONS, COMPLEX MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT 


TO DISCLOSE ADDITIONAL NON-CLINICAL INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE CO TO ASSIGN APPROPRIATE DUTIES TO THE SERVICE PERSON 


TO DISCLOSE PRESCRIBED INFORMATION TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES WHEN REQUIRED BY FEDERAL AND APPLICABLE PROVINCIAL LAWS AND 


TO INFORM THE BASE/AREA SURGEON WHEN THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER HAS INDICATIONS THAT A CO IS NOT PROVIDING THE REQUIRED SUPPORT TO THE MEMBER OR IS NOT RESPECTING MEL 


SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2015)

CANFORGEN 128/03 ADMHRMIL 061 241824Z OCT 03
CDS DIRECTION TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND REGARDING MEDICAL CARE PRESCRIBED AND MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS ASSIGNED BY MEDICAL STAFF TO CF MEMBERS
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS: A. QR AND O 3.33 
B. QR AND O 16.16 
C. QR AND O 34.01 
D. CDS DAILY EXECUTIVE MEETING NOTES 29 MAY 98 
E. CANFORGEN 076/98 
F. CANFORGEN 026/00 
G. CANFORGEN 053/02 



THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COMMANDING OFFICERS REGARDING MEDICAL CARE THAT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED, AND MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED BY MEDICAL STAFF TO CF MEMBERS UNDER THEIR COMMAND. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE, MEDICAL STAFF MEANS A MEDICAL OFFICER OR OTHER MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WHO HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE BASE / WING SURGEON OR OTHER MORE SENIOR MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL AUTHORITY AS BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS 


ON 29 APRIL 1998 THE CDS INSTRUCTED THAT EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS ASSIGNED BY MEDICAL STAFF WILL BE HONOURED BY THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WITHOUT ALTERATION 


COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE REMINDED THAT THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO OVERRULE OR DISREGARD WHAT MEDICAL STAFF RECOMMEND AS MEDICAL CARE FOR CF MEMBERS UNDER THEIR COMMAND. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO MEDICAL AND SURGICAL TREATMENT, DIAGNOSTIC AND INVESTIGATIONAL PROCEDURES, HOSPITALIZATION, PREVENTIVE MEDICINE PROCEDURES, MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS AND SICK LEAVE 


COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CLARIFY ISSUES AROUND MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS WITH THE APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING MEDICAL STAFF. HOWEVER, COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE REMINDED THAT CLARIFICATION OR RESOLUTION OF ANY ISSUE RELATED TO THE MEDICAL DECISIONS TAKEN BY MEDICAL STAFF SHALL BE BETWEEN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THE APPROPRIATE MEDICAL AUTHORITY, AND NOT BETWEEN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER 


IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS ADM HR MIL WILL ISSUE A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR COMMANDING OFFICERS AND THEIR SUPPORTING MEDICAL STAFFS ON WHAT INFORMATION CAN AND SHOULD BE TRANSMITTED FROM HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS TO RESPONSIBLE CO S. THIS GUIDE WILL CLARIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH HEALTH CARE LICENSING BODY AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY CAN BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH MILITARY OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION AS WELL AS THE ETHICAL AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS AND THE CHAIN OF COMMAND 


THIS NEW POLICY BRINGS CLARIFICATION CONCERNING REF A, REINFORCES DIRECTION GIVEN AT REF D, SUPERSEDES REF E AND IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY


----------



## upandatom (23 Jan 2015)

Ran into this during a PLQ in petawawa, and we were briefed by the Base Surgeon at the time on the matter;

1. You dont have to tell them you are going to the MIR, telling them has become a common courtesy nowadays to inform them as to your whereabouts. Upon return to work tthat is when you give them the chit with your MELs. (will also disclose your arrival and departure time)

2. Noone can tell you you can not go to the MIR, if they do turn and walk/drive to the MIR.

3. If the CoC is going to start doing this, inform medical personell and the Base Surgeon will contact the CO of your unit right away and put a very quick end to this.(as happened on my PLQ)

4. You do not have to disclose anything about your visit to the MIR. Why you went etc. The only thing your CoC is to be aware of is your MELs if any. 

All that being said;
This might be the "welcome to the unit we hard as !@#$" which, if i am fairly certain the unit you are at, it wont stay that way for long. Eventually over time your CoC might get to know you and whether you are a pump or not, at that point, you could get more leeway. 

But I do suggest bring this upwards, thats not right. 

As always though, pick your battles.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jan 2015)

So you suggest young soldiers just blow off their 0730 pt timing to go to sick parade and expect their CoC to be cool with them being AWOL for 2-3 hours just because they came back with an in/out chit? You're right out to lunch. Some units would have the DI started or people driving to the individuals house before they even returned from the MIR without any sort of contact.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2015)

I'm not so sure about your first point.  It's my understanding you have a responsibility to ensure your CoC knows where you are whether that be telling your section commander or fireteam partner to pass up.  You can't just arbitrarily come and go as you please without someone knowing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So you suggest young soldiers just blow off their 0730 pt timing to go to sick parade and expect their CoC to be cool with them being AWOL for 2-3 hours just because they came back with an in/out chit? You're right out to lunch. Some units would have the DI started or people driving to the individuals house before they even returned from the MIR without any sort of contact.



Or worried that you may have hurt yourself.


----------



## Occam (23 Jan 2015)

Cheers for posting up the two CANFORGENs, Sheep Dog AT...my network connection isn't playing nicely today.

CFHS Group Inst 5020-20 is a little lengthy, but the appropriate section follows:

 Disclosure to Commanding Officers

26. In accordance with the Privacy Act, and subject to legislated exceptions, no specific diagnosis or course of treatment will normally be disclosed to, or discussed with the CO. In accordance with Reference G _(CANFORGEN 039/08)_, medical personnel must provide COs with detailed MELs but "specific information such as diagnosis and detailed treatment should not be disclosed". Since there is generally no Command requirement to know the name of a specific consultant or treatment facility providing care to a CAF member, medical staff should therefore withhold the name if it would reveal the patient's diagnosis (for example the name of an in-patient addiction treatment facility).

27. Examples of personal information which CANNOT be disclosed:
a.Specific clinical findings relating to the disease / injury, specific clinical findings (such as signs and symptoms), diagnosis, course of treatment (e.g. names of drugs prescribed/details of surgery, details of emergency treatment, if any), results of tests;
b.Specific details regarding why an individual has been referred to a specialist;
c.The name of the specific institution or treatment facility/clinic or of a specific clinician/specialist if it would reveal the specific diagnosis;
d.Cause of injury where disclosure would unavoidably reveal the diagnosis; or
e.Course of medical care where the disclosure itself would unavoidably reveal a diagnosis even if the specific disease or condition is never mentioned.

Disclosure Related to MELs

28. To assist the CO in dealing effectively with a CAF member who may present with health problems (physical and/or mental health) or psychosocial conditions, the Health Care Provider (HCP), may present to the CO:
a.The CAF member’s medical employment limitations (MELs);
b.Anticipated absences from the workplace; and
c.Where possible, a prognosis (chance of recovery).

29. Any medical employment limitations that have been assigned to a CAF member because of a health problem or psychosocial condition, as well as the prognosis of that condition (where possible), will be fully described and explained to the CAF member’s CO by the member’s HCP. _Note: Actual copies of a CAF member's health record should not be provided without written consent._

I agree that just ditching a 0730 PT timing without notifying anyone wouldn't be wise.  However, I would notify somone in the CoC ahead of time that "I'm going to the MIR" to prevent the issues that Sheep Dog AT has mentioned.  I once ended up standing at attention in front of a BCPO being read the riot act for not informing my CoC that I was going to the MIR, but bearing in mind the effort that the CoC was exerting to find out my medical condition, I noted the gist of the message for future reference and chalked up the blast I got as being the CoC being bent out of shape because the MO and I (and eventually the Base Surgeon) refused to disclose the nature of the condition being treated.


----------



## medicineman (23 Jan 2015)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> Why hasn't his WO stepped in and stopped this? Senior NCO's are in place for a reason, to keep the Officers in check and remind them of the rules. This is a BS policy made by someone who is either unclear of the law or abusing their authority.



And what makes you think the CSM/SSM didn't suggest it to the OC in the first place?  Wouldn't be the first time I'd seen that happen...

MM


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Jan 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> Oh that Maj...I mean there can only be one posted there right



My bad.  One _particular_ Major...


----------



## upandatom (23 Jan 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So you suggest young soldiers just blow off their 0730 pt timing to go to sick parade and expect their CoC to be cool with them being AWOL for 2-3 hours just because they came back with an in/out chit? You're right out to lunch. Some units would have the DI started or people driving to the individuals house before they even returned from the MIR without any sort of contact.



99% of the sick parades I have seen have a 0730 opening time. As I said, its courtesy. Regardless a call or a text message, even a smokle signal to inform.
That being said, once people return to work and that member is not there, then start inquiring. Most people with a head on their shoulders would send a text to a buddy or their direct supervisor in their section as to their location. 

The hurt themselves excuse, can only see that being used in bad weather, bad road conditions. Your supposed to have a good knowledge of your troops. Not so cut off you have no clue that they arent capable at conducting themselves in a proffesional manner and go to the MIR and return with chits. IF you cant trust your troops to do that, let them know how to act. 

FYI- It is not AWOL if you are in the MIR under the supervision of medical Staff. If you are in such rough shape that you will be held longer, the medical staff would and should inform your CoC about your condition and the appropriate steps will carry on from there.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jan 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> The hurt themselves excuse, can only see that being used in bad weather, bad road conditions.



Really? You can't hurt yourself when you're at home after work? How about while at work, not on PT?


----------



## upandatom (23 Jan 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Really? You can't hurt yourself when you're at home after work? How about while at work, not on PT?



That is what phones are for.... or a smoke signal. 
Their partner should know who to call if its serious.

If your troops are that incompetent, it might not be a troop issue, you may need to loosen the chain and let them fail. We are trained as adults, treat your troops like it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Jan 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> That is what phones are for.... or a smoke signal.
> Their partner should know who to call if its serious.
> 
> If your troops are that incompetent, it might not be a troop issue, you may need to loosen the chain and let them fail. We are trained as adults, treat your troops like it.



Not sure that's relevant here; the OP was describing the CoC requiring their approval to go to sick parade and the reason why, with threat of charges if they didn't have come back with an MEL.

Informing your CoC ahead of time or after arrival that you've reported to sick parade is best practice, but the MIRs do have the sign in/out forms for a reason, so it can be verified if required.

There are lots of good reasons to go by the MIR that won't result in an MEL or sick days, and really it's none of their business anyway why you went.

I would tend to agree the best way to get this sorted is to let the MIR CoC deal with it, if your supervisors won't.  If the Pl Comd or whoever thinks someone is abusing the system, this is not the way to handle it; that's the responsibility of the base surgeon & co.


----------



## Occam (23 Jan 2015)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> If the Pl Comd or whoever thinks someone is abusing the system, this is not the way to handle it; that's the responsibility of the base surgeon & co.



Bingo, hence: "HOWEVER, COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE REMINDED THAT CLARIFICATION OR RESOLUTION OF ANY ISSUE RELATED TO THE MEDICAL DECISIONS TAKEN BY MEDICAL STAFF SHALL BE BETWEEN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THE APPROPRIATE MEDICAL AUTHORITY, AND NOT BETWEEN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER".


----------



## wonknu (23 Jan 2015)

firstly, thanks to everyone for their input, I am slowly building a very strong case to take to my CoC regarding this issue.  Also, to clarify (and to stop the bashing of sigs hahaha), I am not posted to the sigs regiment here in Kingston.  I am in a tri-service unit with a very inexperienced and new CoC (excluding the Maj and my Capt who have significant experience) which might help explain the stupidity of this new policy. 

As previously mentioned I am going to pick and choose VERY carefully when and where and how I bring this issue up to avoid (as someone already mentioned) painting a target on my back or making the situation worse.  That being said, I will not be releasing any of my medical information to my CoC (if I need to attend the MIR in the near future) seeing as I have TONS of references now explicitly stating they do not have the right to know those things.

After poking at my CoC today regarding the issue, they are now saying that they just need the "basics" about why you are going; whatever that means.  To be honest, however, at this point I am now beginning to think they don't have the right to know anything other than "I am sick/injured and will be at the MIR."

Once again thanks for the help from everyone.  Army.ca rocks!


----------



## ballz (23 Jan 2015)

wonknu said:
			
		

> After poking at my CoC today regarding the issue, they are now saying that they just need the "basics" about why you are going; whatever that means.  To be honest, however, at this point I am now beginning to think they don't have the right to know anything other than "I am sick/injured and will be at the MIR."



They don't even need to know "I'm sick" or "I'm injured," all they are entitled to is "I'm going to the MIR and I'll bring a chit (with or without MELs) when I'm back."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> They don't even need to know "I'm sick" or "I'm injured," all they are entitled to is "I'm going to the MIR and I'll bring a chit (with or without MELs) when I'm back."



Even that is changing it seems; where I am posted, they don't give out "time chits" anymore, as they referred to them.  I was told if anyone in my CofC questioned where I was, to direct them to call the BHosp reception and they would tell them when I arrived/when I left.


----------



## ballz (23 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Even that is changing it seems; where I am posted, they don't give out "time chits" anymore, as they referred to them.  I was told if anyone in my CofC questioned where I was, to direct them to call the BHosp reception and they would tell them when I arrived/when I left.



Well that just sounds like pure laziness / incompetence, and gives the CoC more reason to not have any faith in the medical system. IMO, the net between the medical system and the CoC is a broken and unreadable one, which is not good for anyone involved, but that's a topic for another thread.

All that aside, I do believe members should be entitled to confidentiality WRT their medical issues.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jan 2015)

Time to use hockey lingo: Tell them you're going for an upper or lower body injury. Problem solved?


----------



## cupper (23 Jan 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Time to use hockey lingo: Tell them you're going for an upper or lower body injury. Problem solved?



Don't forget, its always an UNDISCLOSED upper / lower body injury.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jan 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Don't forget, its always an UNDISCLOSED upper / lower body injury.



My bad, I guess I'll be relegated to the Asst Coach billet and not talk to the media.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2015)

For the Leafs no less.  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> They don't even need to know "I'm sick" or "I'm injured," all they are entitled to is "I'm going to the MIR and I'll bring a chit (with or without MELs) when I'm back."



True, but as has been said before its best to be upfront. One of my MWOs has cancer and he's very open about it. I have Rheumatoid Arthritis and I think the cleaners might even know that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> True, but as has been said before its best to be upfront. One of my MWOs has cancer and he's very open about it. I have Rheumatoid Arthritis and I think the cleaners might even know that.



I agree Jim but would it be the same if you had, let's say, HIV?  Is that a disease you want to be open with everyone about.  Some illnesses have Stigmas attached to them which is why the CoC is on a strict need to know basis.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I agree Jim but would it be the same if you had, let's say, HIV?  Is that a disease you want to be open with everyone about.  Some illnesses have Stigmas attached to them which is why the CoC is on a strict need to know basis.



Yes, of course there are some things you would not want made public. It's very much an individual's choice.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jan 2015)

It's also medical ethics and common courtesy to maintain confidentiality of medical information.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It's also medical ethics and common courtesy to maintain confidentiality of medical information.



I have a friend who was working in a clinic. No names, no pack drill (no names mentioned) but some senior folk reported in with....a variety of afflictions.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I have a friend who was working in a clinic. No names, no pack drill (no names mentioned) but some senior folk reported in with....a variety of afflictions.



Stuff happens and such is life!


----------



## my72jeep (24 Jan 2015)

3 years back I was diagnosed with colon cancer and made the choice to inform my unit of it, and to make light of it as a copping tool. all that happened was, I became the but of all jokes. >


----------



## TCM621 (24 Jan 2015)

I am personally very open about medical issues, family issues, work issues, etc. I very rarely have anything to hide and I don't care if people know my business. But that is my choice. As soon  as someone starts using that against me, I will give them the minimum information required by regulation. I can stand at attention and yes sir, no sir with the best of them.


----------



## MW (25 Jan 2015)

Hello Pte,

One of my colleagues has made me aware of your post. I have not had a chance to read all the replies here, but if this is happening on your unit, please be aware it is 100% unacceptable. Your medical information is completely confidential.

I am currently the acting base surgeon at CFB Kingston. Please email me over DWAN to discuss this. 

Capt Wilson

meghan.wilson[AT]forces.gc.ca

EDIT:  Just changed the email thingy.
Bruce


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2015)

op:s

Well, this just got interesting....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jan 2015)

I was going to say shit just got real. And a mike drop by the base surgeon.


----------



## cupper (25 Jan 2015)

This is usually the point where everyone suddenly finds something that needs to be done, somewhere else.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jan 2015)

Hell no. This just got real spicy.


----------



## cryco (25 Jan 2015)

I'm guessing we won't read much more about this on here. But I do admit, this is interesting.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jan 2015)

cryco said:
			
		

> I'm guessing we won't read much more about this on here. But I do admit, this is interesting.



I'm happy we won't have to read much more on the subject, because its being taken care of.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Jan 2015)

I'm betting there will be a few interesting o groups at Kingston this week...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jan 2015)

I've got my money on the week after. Cross the t's dot the i's


----------



## medicineman (26 Jan 2015)

Teeeheeeheeeheee.

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm betting there will be a few interesting o groups at Kingston this week...


I sense one of these coming ....


----------



## upandatom (26 Jan 2015)

To me its good news. 

Some CoCs walk around with hard ons thinking they are special and they choose to do things their own way with the their own rules. 

Just shows. Some CoCs are out for themselves and not for their troops, and the need a wake up call.


----------



## TCM621 (26 Jan 2015)

I hope the member doesn't get cold feet and contacts the base surgeon.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Jan 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I hope the member doesn't get cold feet and contacts the base surgeon.



He/she doesn't necessarily have to. A general reminder from the top down might suffice.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Jan 2015)

This is good. I am not even sure how Capt Wilson got wind of things but I am very happy to see that she wants to make thing right.

I look forward to sitrep/update from either her or the OP.


----------



## X Royal (26 Jan 2015)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I am not even sure how Capt Wilson got wind of things





			
				MW said:
			
		

> Hello Pte,
> 
> *One of my colleagues has made me aware of your post*.  Please email me over DWAN to discuss this.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2015)

Couldn't be much clearer.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Jan 2015)

Derp, that'll teach me to text and reply at the same time.


----------



## Greymatters (26 Jan 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm betting there will be a few interesting o groups at Kingston this week...



I think another topic at that O-group will be a discussion on why troops are taking their problems to an Internet forum instead of dealing with problems 'in-house'...


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Jan 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think another topic at that O-group will be a discussion on why troops are taking their problems to an Internet forum instead of dealing with problems 'in-house'...



According to the sixth post on this thread, the individual did raise the issue with his/her chain of command and was told the direction came from "higher."


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think another topic at that O-group will be a discussion on why troops are taking their problems to an Internet forum instead of dealing with problems 'in-house'...



And it will not be the first, nor the last, time that army.ca was on the radar.


----------



## 63 Delta (26 Jan 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think another topic at that O-group will be a discussion on why troops are taking their problems to an Internet forum instead of dealing with problems 'in-house'...



And since you cant prove who the OP is, it's a moot point.


----------



## upandatom (26 Jan 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think another topic at that O-group will be a discussion on why troops are taking their problems to an Internet forum instead of dealing with problems 'in-house'...



Lower ranks 99.99% of the time have their ideas and concepts scrapped. Dealing with this in house during an O group would of only put the member in the line of fire from their CoC. Being new to a unit and unsure of the boundaries or who to approach the member did the right thing, asked and hopefully now the problem is being resolved.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jan 2015)

It shouldn't put anyone in my the line of fire as there are no names no pack drill


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Jan 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> It shouldn't put anyone in my the line of fire as there are no names no pack drill



Or they will take it out on everybody.

Maybe even bring back the old army system of having personnel for sick parade present themselves to the orderly sergeant, properly dressed and with their shaving kit, etc in their small packs with shoulder strap lung over the right shoulder, and hanging against the left hip. The orderly sergeant then inspected them, rejecting and maybe charging any who were not well turned out, and marching the remainder to the MIR. I'm not making this up.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jan 2015)

Oh I was in for that. There was also basically a sign out sheet


----------



## dangerboy (26 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Or they will take it out on everybody.
> 
> Maybe even bring back the old army system of having personnel for sick parade present themselves to the orderly sergeant, properly dressed and with their shaving kit, etc in their small packs with shoulder strap lung over the right shoulder, and hanging against the left hip. The orderly sergeant then inspected them, rejecting and maybe charging any who were not well turned out, and marching the remainder to the MIR. I'm not making this up.



Don't forget forming up in front of the entire BN on morning parade so they could see who was going to sick parade.  That is what 2 VP did when I first got there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Maybe even bring back the old army system of having personnel for sick parade present themselves to the orderly sergeant, properly dressed and with their shaving kit, etc in their small packs with shoulder strap* lung over the right shoulder*, and hanging against the left hip.


And it would be one heartless, crusty duty NCO, indeed, who would deny access to the MIR with a trooper showing up with a lung over his shoulder  ;D

In all seriousness, though ....


			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Or they will take it out on everybody.


If the leadership is "stellar" in one aspect, it wouldn't surprise anyone that it might be just as "stellar" in others - unfortunately.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jan 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think another topic at that O-group will be a discussion on why troops are taking their problems to an Internet forum instead of dealing with problems 'in-house'...



Welcome to the 21st century, this generation will do this whether you agree or not. Even in civy street we have to grapple with the social norms of the current generations.


----------



## Occam (26 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Or they will take it out on everybody.
> 
> Maybe even bring back the old army system of having personnel for sick parade present themselves to the orderly sergeant, properly dressed and with their shaving kit, etc in their small packs with shoulder strap lung over the right shoulder, and hanging against the left hip. The orderly sergeant then inspected them, rejecting and maybe charging any who were not well turned out, and marching the remainder to the MIR. I'm not making this up.



No doubt in my mind that what you say is true, but I would hope that in this day and age that today's leaders would recognize that doing what you've described above is no different than having Pte Bloggins report to his supervisor and get grilled on why they're going to the MIR.  What business does anyone have singling out Bloggins and any other personnel who want to go to MIR to get something as simple as an OTC medication?  QR&Os say to report without delay in case of illness; the CoC shouldn't be introducing any shenanigans that would attempt to shame someone into not going.


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> No doubt in my mind that what you say is true, but I would hope that in this day and age that today's leaders would recognize that doing what you've described above is no different than having Pte Bloggins report to his supervisor and get grilled on why they're going to the MIR.  What business does anyone have singling out Bloggins and any other personnel who want to go to MIR to get something as simple as an OTC medication?  QR&Os say to report without delay in case of illness; the CoC shouldn't be introducing any shenanigans that would attempt to shame someone into not going.



Indeed. The practice dates at least from the 19th century. In his book _From Quebec to Pretoria with The Royal Canadian Regiment_, Sergeant William Hart-McHarg criticized its use in 2 RCR in South Africa.


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Jan 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Welcome to the 21st century, this generation will do this whether you agree or not. Even in civy street we have to grapple with the social norms of the current generations.



+1 on that. 

50 years ago a disgruntled soldier might bitch to his brothers at the Mason's Lodge.
25 years ago a disgruntled soldier might bitch to the guys he played hockey with.
Now a disgruntled soldier might bitch to his internet community.

We don't have to like it, but we have to be aware of it.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2015)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Don't forget forming up in front of the entire BN on morning parade so they could see who was going to sick parade.  That is what 2 VP did when I first got there.



I remember those. Not fondly either.


----------



## TCM621 (26 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I remember those. Not fondly either.


I remember at the PPCLI battle school in the mid 90s, the standard was bunch stripped with bedding folded at the foot, small pack with shaving kit, pair of socks and underwear and a book. You would from up separate from the rest as the sick lame and lazy section.  As a 17 year old kid that seemed ok but I can't imagine my reaction if someone told me to do that today.


----------



## cupper (26 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And it will not be the first, nor the last, time that army.ca was on the radar.



We all know the Good Idea Fairies monitor this site for new and creative ways to improve the life of your average service member, so why would something like this be any different. ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2015)

There were good reasons for that procedure.

The kit had to be packed in case you were hospitalized, so at least you had some kit. Otherwise your Pl WO would have to chase it down and bring it to you.
There is no good reason to have you formed up under the BOS while the remainder of the battlaion has a morning parade.


----------



## medicineman (26 Jan 2015)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Don't forget forming up in front of the entire BN on morning parade so they could see who was going to sick parade.  That is what 2 VP did when I first got there.



I can remember us joking that Juliette Coy was reformed when I first got to 2 RCR, since on CO's ruck march days, we'd be all formed up and the ill/broken would be too, in front of all of us, with their rucks at their feet...even those on crutches.  That in itself was a bit of an issue, since we were required to have a minimum weight of 65lbs in our rucks for those walks.  There was most often a decent number of folks up there.  The CO would talk to each individual as to what was up...if it was obvious he wasn't unkind to them, however he'd get up in their grill if there was hesitation and or no obvious sign of injury.  The Director General Health Services had tea and sticky buns with him one day while she was visiting us in Gagetown, and one thing in particular on the agenda was this practice.

MM


----------



## mikeninercharlie (26 Jan 2015)

MM. I was there for the first part of that "courtesy call" and I can guarantee that there were no sticky buns and coffee >


----------



## medicineman (26 Jan 2015)

I figured he might have laid on something to be polite... ;D

MM


----------



## ballz (26 Jan 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think another topic at that O-group will be a discussion on why troops are taking their problems to an Internet forum instead of dealing with problems 'in-house'...



Try and abuse authority the way this CoC has (assuming, of course, there is no twisting or misunderstanding of msgs here) and you have earned an embarrassing internet thread with your kind of direction/leadership as the topic.


----------



## Dissident (27 Jan 2015)

Leadership is not a popularity contest, yet it amazes me how some "leaders" have an Asperger-esque understanding of the dynamics created by their "leadership-style". Oh well.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> To me its good news.
> 
> Some CoCs walk around with hard ons thinking they are special and they choose to do things their own way with the their own rules.
> 
> Just shows. Some CoCs are out for themselves and not for their troops, and the need a wake up call.



You are correct in your assessment but all of us older folks know some career corporals who were real guard house lawyers. Every time a soldier was disciplined they'd spout off indignantly "they can't do that" and encourage others to adopt a similar attitude.

Most soldiers see right through these types.


----------



## X Royal (27 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> You are correct in your assessment but all of us older folks know some career corporals who were real guard house lawyers. Every time a soldier was disciplined they'd spout off indignantly "they can't do that" and encourage others to adopt a similar attitude.


In in many cases they were correct and just didn't give a hoot who they p*ssed off, the reason they remained corporals for life.
Being correct but bucking the preferred path of the COC doesn't jump someone up the list for career courses or promotion.


----------



## TCM621 (27 Jan 2015)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Leadership is not a popularity contest, yet it amazes me how some "leaders" have an Asperger-esque understanding of the dynamics created by their "leadership-style". Oh well.


Funny how good leaders are almost always popular though. You can't be a good leader by trying to be popular one but you can be a popular leader by trying to be a good one. 

Good leaders seem to be able to work the troops like dogs and the troops are happy to do it.


----------



## TCM621 (27 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There were good reasons for that procedure.
> 
> The kit had to be packed in case you were hospitalized, so at least you had some kit. Otherwise your Pl WO would have to chase it down and bring it to you.
> There is no good reason to have you formed up under the BOS while the remainder of the battlaion has a morning parade.


That was the explanation given, I seem to remember being confused as to why my twisted ankle would require hospitalization. Come to think of it, now almost 20 years on I can't think of one time I went to the MIR for sick parade and ended up hospitalized.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (27 Jan 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That was the explanation given, I seem to remember *being confused as to why my twisted ankle would require hospitalization*. Come to think of it, now almost 20 years on I can't think of one time I went to the MIR for sick parade and ended up hospitalized.



It may seem odd in this day and age, but think back to the days (maybe even before your time) when a good percentage of single soldiers lived in the shacks, even when not on course.  A primary reason why "base hospitals" continued to provide in-patient care was to accommodate living-in pers who (even though they did not actually require admission to a "real hospital") had no one to care for them in the shack.

Your twisted ankle may have been minor to your non-medically trained self but I've had soldiers limp into the MIR looking for a tensor bandage and excused PT chit and after examination and x-rays found themselves in need of a cast.  It was even more necessary (back in the day) that soldiers on course (particularly basic training - the only time that I personally had to strip bedding and take my small pack on sick parade. . . broke toe in the swimming pool) were prepared to not return to their course, either because an injury would prevent them from continuing or their medical problem was possibly contagious and they had to be separated to prevent the spread.


----------



## X Royal (27 Jan 2015)

Even with your example of a soldier requiring a cast hospitalization wouldn't be required.
The whole pack up your gear system was a way to discourage those from reporting on sick parade.
Hopes were that only those really requiring treatment would go on sick parade.
The down side was those who should of gone earlier resisted going only to make the problem they were having get far worse. 
I almost got re-coursed on basic in Cornwallis when the MO was going to hospitalize me for a lung infection which could have been treated easier if I reported earlier.
I was lucky enough to convince him to pump me full of antibiotics and let to continue.
I spent a couple of days excused drill while the platoon prepared for graduation but improved after a couple of days and finished with the course.


----------



## Occam (27 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> You are correct in your assessment but all of us older folks know some career corporals who were real guard house lawyers. Every time a soldier was disciplined they'd spout off indignantly "they can't do that" and encourage others to adopt a similar attitude.
> 
> Most soldiers see right through these types.



More often than not, users of the term "guard house lawyer" are simply people who got egg on their face for not being aware of a regulation that someone else did have knowledge of.  

Some people are career corporals by choice - not everyone aspires to higher rank or more advanced career coursing.  Nearly everyone wants to be treated respectfully, though.


----------



## medicineman (27 Jan 2015)

X Royal said:
			
		

> Even with your example of a soldier requiring a cast hospitalization wouldn't be required.



I can remember countless occasions where we'd done short stay admissions for guys/gals living in shacks that had casts on - simply because in those days we didn't use fibreglass the way we do now, so a leg cast was up to 50+ lbs of wet plaster that needed to set properly and often caused a lot of grief for the poor sod that had to crutch their way up and down stairs, to the mess, etc.  



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> More often than not, users of the term "guard house lawyer" are simply people who got egg on their face for not being aware of a regulation that someone else did have knowledge of.



I do agree with this, but only to a point - for every person that's like that I've run into, there are I'd say four or five that really know squat about dick all without really knowing how little they really know and their "opinions" spread like a virus...people hear and believe what they want to hear and believe, especially those facing charges or administrative actions.  They take what that twit said to heart, only to end up having a really rude shock when they find out that Cpl Numpty really does take after their namesake.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## TCM621 (27 Jan 2015)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I can remember countless occasions where we'd done short stay admissions for guys/gals living in shacks that had casts on - simply because in those days we didn't use fibreglass the way we do now, so a leg cast was up to 50+ lbs of wet plaster that needed to set properly and often caused a lot of grief for the poor sod that had to crutch their way up and down stairs, to the mess, etc.
> 
> I do agree with this, but only to a point - for every person that's like that I've run into, there are I'd say four or five that really know squat about dick all without really knowing how little they really know and their "opinions" spread like a virus...people hear and believe what they want to hear and believe, especially those facing charges or administrative actions.  They take what that twit said to heart, only to end up having a really rude shock when they find out that Cpl Numpty really does take after their namesake.
> 
> ...


Good info. It may very well have been a hold over from before my time. God knows there are enough of them. 

And as a self professed barracks lawyer, I will fully admit for every person like me who reads regs and researchs entitlements and limitations, there are 5 who assume rumours as facts. It can such for a bit until guys get to know you and realize you are aren't a troublemaker. I am just upfront with it now. I tell people, "I read regs and will argue points based on them. I have no problem with being wrong, just prove it so I know how to find the right answer for next time".


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Some people are career corporals by choice - not everyone aspires to higher rank or more advanced career coursing.  Nearly everyone wants to be treated respectfully, though.



I agree. There are some who want to remain as corporals, and I have no issue with that.

It's the ones who think they are lawyers, master strategists, tactical geniuses and RMS clerks all rolled into one that irritate me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jan 2015)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Leadership is not a popularity contest



No that's getting promoted


----------



## Blackadder1916 (27 Jan 2015)

X Royal said:
			
		

> Even with your example of a soldier requiring a cast hospitalization wouldn't be required.



Medicineman provided adequate response.



> The whole pack up your gear system was a way to discourage those from reporting on sick parade.
> Hopes were that only those really requiring treatment would go on sick parade.
> The down side was those who should of gone earlier resisted going only to make the problem they were having get far worse. . . .



It may have contributed to discouraging the "sick, lame and lazy" but the packing up of one's gear (something I've only seen in recruit and battle school situations) was a security and time saving measure - security of the soldier's kit and time saving for the staff (recruits' time doesn't matter).  Having to take your small pack with shaving kit, change of gitch and (IIRC from Cornwallis forty years ago) PT strip on sick parade was necessary if one was admitted - the CFMS didn't have hospital uniforms for issue.



> I almost got re-coursed on basic in Cornwallis when the MO was going to hospitalize me for a lung infection which could have been treated easier if I reported earlier.



Sounds more like you were more at fault that anyone else.  Granted there have been many occasions when the medical conditions of inexperienced soldiers have been overlooked or deliberately ignored by their immediate superiors and shame on them for their negligence of duty.  At the same time there have been many incidences of soldiers not reporting a medical condition because they didn't want to appear weak or because it would have delayed completing a course.  They are equally at fault.

Being aware of the physical condition of one's soldiers was always (in my time anyway) a leadership responsibility.  I can't count the number of times that I've examined the feet of soldiers after a long march either as a medic (_often in conjunction with or at the direction of Sect Comds, Pl Comd, OCs or their NCO/WO counterparts_), or as a section/platoon/company commander.  It is possible to be aware of the physical and medical condition of a soldier without having the specific details of an individual's medical problem (trying to keep this post on tangent with the thread).


----------



## upandatom (28 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> You are correct in your assessment but all of us older folks know some career corporals who were real guard house lawyers. Every time a soldier was disciplined they'd spout off indignantly "they can't do that" and encourage others to adopt a similar attitude.
> 
> Most soldiers see right through these types.



I am all for discipline when it is required. Do not call me on that, extra training for sure. There are those that read one or two CANFORGENS that yammer on with no idea. 
To a certain extent I think "Extra Training" should be brought back instead of whipping out a charge sheet, we waste alot of time and money on the Military judicial process for some matters that can clearly be sorted with a March in front of the RSM and the option for a summary trial or extras on the table.

I know there are many units out there that do as they please. Case in hand;
I was at one that made the sick/injured walk around the base(small base 3km or so) and not go into the weight room to work out, or follow their prescribed physio workout plan. (written, documented)
Instead they were paraded in front of the unit, (many with legitimate injuries, torn knee, torn shoulder, broken wrists) every PT session and told to walk, regardless of the injury for the full 1hr pt period, 
while the members who weren't injured would carry on with a 5km run, return 30 min later and shower and be let go early. (PT was at the end of the day)

This was all due to there being no Senior NCOs to "supervise" the members in the weightroom. I know for a fact that there were several MCpls that were PLQ qualified, and responsible. 

Even when the members returned from the "injured nature walks," they were told to get into the fast group, and would either injure themselves or become discouraged, disgruntled.

That isnt at all looking after the welfare or well being of your troops.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Jan 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> I know there are many units out there that do as they please. Case in hand;
> I was at one that made the sick/injured walk around the base(small base 3km or so) and not go into the weight room to work out, or follow their prescribed physio workout plan. (written, documented)
> Instead they were paraded in front of the unit, (many with legitimate injuries, torn knee, torn shoulder, broken wrists) every PT session and told to walk, regardless of the injury for the full 1hr pt period,
> while the members who weren't injured would carry on with a 5km run, return 30 min later and shower and be let go early. (PT was at the end of the day)
> ...



There is just too much  :facepalm: in there.


----------



## AirDet (28 Jan 2015)

I'm curious, has anyone in Kingston reported this policy to the MIR's CSM? MWOs, CWOs, CSMs, and RSMs are there to fix things like this. I would start there. 

If that intimidates you talk to a WRA about abuse of authority. That's one of the reasons they're there.

The CF has systems in place to balance things. A WRA can advice you properly. There is a list qualified of WRAs on Kingston's main webpage.


----------



## DAA (28 Jan 2015)

AirDet said:
			
		

> I'm curious, has anyone in Kingston reported this policy to the MIR's CSM? MWOs, CWOs, CSMs, and RSMs are there to fix things like this. I would start there.
> 
> If that intimidates you talk to a WRA about abuse of authority. That's one of the reasons they're there.
> 
> The CF has systems in place to balance things. A WRA can advice you properly. There is a list qualified of WRAs on Kingston's main webpage.



Welcome to the conversation.  Obviously, you didn't read the whole thread ---->  http://army.ca/forums/threads/117679/post-1348037.html#msg1348037


----------



## Greymatters (2 Feb 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think another topic at that O-group will be a discussion on why troops are taking their problems to an Internet forum instead of dealing with problems 'in-house'...



I think my comment has been misinterpreted by a few readers; I am not implying that the soldier at the bottom of this incident should have kept it 'in-house'; I think it was use of a good resource for this website to be used as a form of whistleblower.

My comment refers to an OC/CO of an O-Group looking at their senior officers and NCO's and asking 'why am I hearing about this problem from the Base Surgeon (and/or the Internet), and not from my own staff'?


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2015)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think my comment has been misinterpreted by a few readers; I am not implying that the soldier at the bottom of this incident should have kept it 'in-house'; I think it was use of a good resource for this website to be used as a form of whistleblower.
> 
> My comment refers to an OC/CO of an O-Group looking at their senior officers and NCO's and asking 'why am I hearing about this problem from the Base Surgeon (and/or the Internet), and not from my own staff'?



AH!  Memories of an RCR LCol who thought a cell phone was a secure means and issued his orders to his subordinates via that means, all the while EW was monitoring freqs for the enemy force.   He couldn't figure out why the Enemy could so accurately foresee his every move........until it all came out in the Hot Wash.    :nod: 

[Edit to add]

Today's leaders have to be conscious that there are so many different means of communications available to today's soldiers, and so many means to research or ask questions, that they may not need the CoC to clarify matters that may be questionable.


----------

