By-law No. 28 (Consultation Closed)

CMRTO response for clarity: A member's home address, home telephone number and birthdate are NOT currently on the public register and WILL NOT be on the public register under these proposed changes (see section 7 of the proposed by-law for further clarification).

I think this is a terrible idea and violates the privacy of individual MRTs. I fail to see how this protects the public in any way and only puts CMRTO members under unnecessary scrutiny. Whether or not an MRT has received disciplinary action in the past makes no difference as to whether they can accurately treat/image a pt. If what they did before was so bad, their license should be taken away and no longer a registered MRT.

CMRTO response for clarity: Discipline findings are already on the public register as required by the Code of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

This sounds like a witch hunt.   You might of gone a bit to far.  Where is our right  to privacy.

Giving out phone numbers?  Really.......I am opposed to these new proposals.

Changes are fair and acceptable.

I have said it before and i will say it again, as did other MRTs above, charges against a MRT should not be included on the register...only convictions.  The judicial system works on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty and the CMRTO should follow suit.

Changes are fair.  MRTs need to remember that the College is in place to protect the public not it's members. If there are charges against my physician I would fully expect to be able to see those on CPSO therefore as professionals we should expect the exact same treatment.

I also oppose the amendment.  

I feel the publishing of proposed materials is unfair to the MRT.  People make mistakes and people change.  Members also need privacy.  The CMRTO can keep records and files on a member, but to allow the public to view this material on a whim is not protecting the member.  The CMRTO is going to far.

I oppose.

I think it puts the CMRTO member under unfair scrutiny as well.  If a member has received disciplinary action, have they then not paid due justice?  Why are they being further disciplined?  Will co- workers or the public use this information maliciously? I think it's a bad idea that will lead to further problems.

I also oppose the amendment.   Publishing the proposed information violates the MRT's right to privacy.  There is no reason that the general public should be able to access this information.  If the MRT has been disciplined by a committee of the CMRTO the public has been protected.  As stated above - people make mistakes and they learn from them. 

I also agree that publishing "potential" charges is risking the MRT's privacy rights. If legal action is taken, the charges are upheld and the MRT is not cleared, then said charges can be made public. It is very hard to prove innocence and keep your reputation after things have been made public.

I am opposed to the amendment.

Charges, should not be made public.  Is the CMRTO not concerned about legal actions taken against the college in respect to defamation of character when a member is wrongly charged?  A legal opinion would be worthwhile.

I would not like this by-law to pass.

Thank you.

So every complaint and charges should be public? We have lunatics complaining almost every month. That is private matter and shouldn't be public 

I don't think it is fair to publish potential charges either.  For instance a patient accused an mrt(r) for stealing her wallet, the police was involved and is wasn't until weeks later she found it behind her bedside table- she didn't even have it in her purse that day! Charges were dropped.

 Another patient accused a male technologist for touching her inappropriately, he was suspended from work until the investigation was deemed unfounded(at the time we still checked for pubis bone- he may have forgot to explain to pt what he was doing). 

Do we really need these open to the public, when the public is the one with the misdemeanor.

If found guilty I agree to making it public but not before that time.

I do agree that patients should be treated professionally but haven't we gone too far?  It seems this is going by by way of landlord/tenant relationships.  The tenants have all the rights. A colleague of my had a ridiculous complaint from a patient.  This inquiry lasted 10 months, causing her a great amount of stress not to mention the financial burden of using a paralegal! Meanwhile, the patient's past is never checked for previous malicious incidents. Why aren't we as professionals opposing all these changes?  You guys need to look out for us period!!!!

CMRTO members date of birth,home address and phone numbers are private and confidential matters and general public must not have access to the confidential information and never be published.Access of the member's personal information can be harmful to the member and his/her family by anyone.

CMRTO response for clarity: Member’s birth dates, home addresses and telephone numbers are not, and will not be, part of the public register.

Not sure if pending discipline needs to be in the public domain or even

charges of guilt result.  Not sure the relevance of "KNOWN REGISTRATION OF LICENSES TO PRACTISE THE PROFESSION IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION", does this relate to out of province, out of

country.....??  Thanks for the work you do!

I believe this is in keeping with other regulatory colleges, and goes a long way to ensuring transparency which ultimately helps to protect the public. Glad that no personal information will be shared other than what is allowed by legislation.