Made my day! On 23 Apr 2015 10:42, "Jose Colaco" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Case of Colaço v Faleiro aka Sore about Soaring Spirits > The Court of First Instance, Pretend-Juiz Zuzebab presiding > April 23, 2015 > > Undisputed Facts of the case: > Both Dr. Francisco Colaço and Valmiki Faleiro are honourable gentlemen. > Mr. Faleiro has penned a book; Dr. Francisco has taken umbrage with some of > the contents in the book. > > In particular, Dr. Colaço alleges that 'private and intimate details' of > ancestral people have been revealed. He also alleges that rhe Margao > Faleiros have a grudge against the Margao Colaços > > Mr. Faleiro contests this. He contends that Dr. Colaço has not provided a > single instance to illustrate or support this allegations. > > Dr. Francisco Colaço de novo alleges that Mr. Faleiro's father was a was a > manic-schizophrenic > > > Prelimainary RULING: > > The Court of First Instance 'orders' clarifications from Dr. Colaço wrt to > the following points raised: > > 1: Which page(s) of the Faleiro book reveal which "'private and intimate > details' of which ancestral people of Dr. Colaço? > > 2: Assuming that there is a diagnosis known as 'manic-schizophrenia' and > assuming that it is accurate, does a patient not have a right to > confidentiality wrt his medical diagnosis? > > 3: Is a medical, and especially a psychiatric diagnosis, NOT specially > protected under Data Protection statues and by Ethical Codes? IF it is, Dr. > Colaço please advise Why you should not be held to have breached the > Ethical principle of Confidentiality of patient diagnosis? > > PN: This Court, by virtue of the above questions, does not Rule that there > is or isn't a diagnosis known as 'manic-schizophrenia' or that any named > or unnamed individual (alive or not) did or did not exhibit symptoms > consistent with the 'diagnosis'. > > Court Adjourned until "Faleam". > > > (transcribed by jc) >
