The application of Ontario human rights legislation to the practice of occupational medicine

Occupational Medicine

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 348-352

  Schweigert, Michael K ^a   Ritter, C J ^b   MacKenzie, D ^b  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical practices; Human rights; Legislation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW; MEDICAL EXAMINATION; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; OCCUPATIONAL PHYSICIAN; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0033860850     PISSN: 09627480     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/50.5.348     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Human Rights: Policies and Practices in Ontario.
2. Anfield RN. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990-A primer of title I provisions for occupational health care professionals. J Occup Med 1992; 34: 503-509.
3. Gilmore N. Drug use and human rights: privacy, vulnerability, disability and human rights infringements. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 1996; 12: 355-447.
4. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 4th edn. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1993.
5. Raskin C. Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace: moral, ethical and legal issues. Bull Narc 1993; 45: 45-81.
6. Toronto Dominion Bank v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Civil Liberties Association July 23, 1998, Federal Court of Appeal, A-392-96. Entrop v Imperial Oil Ltd. (1998) 98 CLLC, 145, 072.
7. Canadian Medical Association. Drug Testing in the Workplace. CMA Policy Statement, 1992.
8. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Policy on Drug and Alcohol Testing, 1996.