staggered manner

Doctors insist upon returning to school that “they do not certify absences due to coronavirus”

The Collegiate Medical Organization recalls that the law recognizes children’s tutors as competent to authorize absences and not physicians.

They cannot say it clearer, louder, or more times: “It is not the responsibility of doctors to certify school absences due to coronavirus .” Among the few clear things that there are in this return to the classroom in the 2020-21 academic year, one of them is that, in a case of coronavirus, the Primary Care doctor has no obligation to certify the absence of the minor, nor the absence of the parent who has to care for the child because it is in quarantine.

The General Council of Official Medical Associations (CGCOM) has issued a final document on this issue, in which it reminds that those who authorize minors not to attend class are the legal guardians of the children, in accordance with the law. Although, in the current context, schools are asking the child to enter class to be healthy and for this, they are measuring the temperature at the entrance.

Children who at the door of school have more than 37.2 ºC could not attend class due to the risk of having the coronavirus and infecting it. Then, the father, mother, or guardian can take their child to the doctor, of course, to request assistance and determine the disease. In this sense, doctors clarify that “they are obliged to certify health states either in a clinical report or in an official medical certificate, but there is no such obligation to proceed to issue medical certificates for a predetermined purpose, requested by the patient herself,. their parents or their legal representative, and that appear contemplated in the report or certificate itself “.

That is, these clinical reports or medical certificates are intended to accredit to third parties a state of health or illness, or a care process provided, but “in no case is it up to the doctor to establish whether or not the school can attend their school, measure that corresponds to the educational and health authorities “.

Nor is it the responsibility of this first level of care to determine whether parents or sons and daughters in quarantine, including cases in which there is no positive, can or cannot access a labor dispensation. “Except for virological positivity, it will never be a medical leave and, therefore, in its case, this circumstance must be articulated and managed through a socio-labor circuit different from the medical one”, they clarify from the CGCOM.

In their report, the doctors recall that “a medical leave is a medical act that is prescribed to a person only in the event of physical or mental incapacity that prevents him from developing his work, in case it is necessary as part of the therapeutic process based on a clinical criterion, or in the case of prophylactic isolation by direct contact with a positive case as it would be in an epidemic context like the current one “.

In its statement, the CGCOM explains the special protection that health data has in relation to its confidentiality. Thus, Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Education, establishes that educational centers can only collect personal data from their students, “insofar as these are necessary for the exercise of their educational function” and that “the right to privacy is especially strict with regard to health”. According to the Code of Medical Deontology in its article 27, “medical professional secrecy is inherent to the exercise of the profession and a right of the patient.”

Together with the WTO, several provincial and autonomous schools have been reiterating the lack of competence of the doctor in the issuance of certificates that are more labor-related than health-related. The official medical associations of Vizcaya, Valladolid, and Madrid have agreed that “temporary disability is granted on a clinical basis”.

In this way, from the Official College of Physicians of Madrid, they reiterate that ” temporary disability cannot become a disaster drawer to solve social issues and saturate an already almost overwhelmed Primary Care. Using it in such a way devalues ​​and undermines the true reason for medical leave. The need to care for a child should be met with another type of benefit, for example, the one already regulated in RD 1148/2011, for the care of minors affected by cancer or another serious illness “.

If any student tests positive, the people who live with him will be obliged to carry out the protocol determined for these cases because they are his direct contacts. If we are working people, we must also inform our company and present the leave that our doctor or Family doctor will have prescribed. But they repeat from the Madrid College in tune with the WTO “without virological positivity, it will never be a medical leave. This circumstance must be articulated and managed through a socio-labor circuit different from the medical one.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: