Golpe contra a ética e o direito dos pacientes trabalhadores

Abstract

(INSS). This could benefit the enterprises to avenge fines and legal suits related to compensation demands from their own workers. This interest was based on cases in which the INSS expert physicians would recognize causal links between workers' diseases and accidents and their jobs, even in the absence of legal communication by the companies in officially filled paperwork like the Work Accidents Report (CAT). They would act in favor of the companies' interest to deny rights to maintain the job contract upon returning from the sick leaves, to avoid additional taxes for an increase in the number of sick workers and even legal suits due the compensations of work-related accidents and diseases. The CFM gave publicity to the proposed ruling advice because they 'think' (it was a suggestion for a directive) that the physicians working at the companies may write to the INSS informing that 'workers' personal health data files' may be used to deny causal links between the work and the compensations claims that were recognized as work-related. They did not 'think' that this disclosure of individual data would harm the workers' rights to privacy, intimacy or it could be an ethics abuse (CMF, 2017B). The same CFM 'thinks' that the workers' health data files are, from 2017 on, 'free to flow' and go to institutional administrative paperworks independently of the consent written by the patients. One should think twice about this CFM new 'thought'. In recent years, much of their thoughts represent initiatives of elected physicians representatives who targeted population, workers and patient's rights. It is not by mere chance that the Brazilian CFM-the physicians' national board-has been the early supporter to Senators and Federal House Representatives that enacted the 2016 coup d'état to put the illegitimate president Temer in power with the support of the judiciary system. They are now backing this attack against workers privacy rights on their personal data files that physicians should keep away from disclosure under ethical protection even under judge's subpoenas. This ruling advice came from the technical group under the number 3/2017 is pretty much welcome by trust representatives that decided not to abide by the legal