And how exactly are you going to discern that they have failed to disclose a medication…?
And more so - how are you going to achieve that without breaching their right to privacy…?
When you find out on the camp they are taking something and haven’t declared it and send them home.
This is getting completely off-topic, but let’s be clear, it’s an absolute requirement to disclose all relevant medical information when cadets join. This is a massive safety point.
For example, cadets can’t fly unless they declare they don’t have any conditions listed on the form.
Yes, you have a right to privacy, but when you join a club or similar they need to know certain things. If you want an absolute right to privacy, then you can not join.
1 Like
And in doing so - you have just broken the law…
I’m not picking an argument - I’m just pointing out how inappropriate the current regs are…
How about a cadet - under 16 - that has been prescribed a medication that the parent is unaware of…?
A medication that the individual doesn’t want all and sundry - ie STAFF to know about… because it is none of their business…?
Case in point - I was witness to female cadets, under 16, being ORDERED to disclose if they were taking contraceptives - either orally or by implantation.
Such actions were considered a MAJOR red flag by officers & prosecutors involved with Operation Yew Tree - when documenting allegations of abuse.
Yes this IS a major detour from the original topic - but I’m trying to highlight how wrong the current policy is - as well as the need for urgent review.
Like in so many instances, if procedure is ineffective, all that happens is you push actions underground… which solves nothing!
Is that a question or a statement.
The parents may not know the person under 16 is taking or receiving and medical treatment. If the doctor regards the child as Gillick compliant the child and instruct there be no disclosure to parents. If the child or young person is not telling their parents it is fare to assume they are not going to be telling CFAVs.
1 Like
And that could invite the risk of a suit for discrimination - a case which would be winnable, but probably settled out of court, unless the individual wanted to draw attention (ironic given right to privacy!).
I agree 100% with the “desire” to be as informed as possible - to ensure the Health, Safety & Welfare etc - but that still does not give RAFAC the authority to insist…
Speaking to numerous front line clinicians, paramedics etc - in any emergent situation, they will treat the symptoms in front of them. A full patient history will be obtained from the patient’s GP.
RAFAC does not “NEED” to know… but it would almost certainly be prudent in most cases.
Only to find parents of said cadet are currently on holiday in Spain so there is no home to send them back to.
er…how exactly?
A CFAV has found out something is going on which breaks the rules of the club, and so the individual is sent home and yet in doing so that breaks the law??
how?
Not anymore. TG23 was updated to v8 (skipping v7 I think?) a few months ago, and it’s now the same ages as TG21 (ie. under 18 = parent signs, over 18 = cadet signs). But I don’t remember there being an IBN/announcement of the change.
See latest version on https://www.bader.mod.uk/
Edit: it was updated in Nov 2024
This is almost word for word, the exact response I was given when I contacted the NSPCC for guidance - because of a conflict of interest involving the individual I described within the CoC.
The matter came about due to a concerned cadet, that wanted to know whether or not they had to disclose their implant (they weren’t comfortable notifying their team leader on an activity).
When I brought up the question with local staff - it prompted this whole argument - not least the fact that contraception at the time was believed to be considered “prescribed medication” - therefore require a TG23…
But another member of staff pointed out that contraception is not considered a “medical condition”.
Passing it up the CoC, I was advised to seek further clarification… which led me to discussing with a variety of medics and the NSPCC.
This is why we need clear, unambiguous, lawful procedures - that are fit for purpose.
In days gone by, “common sense” was relied upon… but now everything is meant to be “by the book” - which is why RAFAC needs a better book.
1 Like
The suggestion is that the individual has failed to declare a medication.
Should the individual not wish to disclose the medication… they cannot be lawfully be compelled to do so.
Breaking the rules of a club, does not trump having to forgo a human right.
Hammer and nut I admit - but you can’t decide which laws do apply and which ones don’t.
All an individual needs do is present a doctors certificate to confirm that they are fit enough to participate - after that, it’s none of your business!
Trying to get back on topic…
Back when I started in 2018, a senior member of staff told me that the problem with blister busting is that CFAVs are NOT qualified medical staff.
If an unqualified person breaks the skin of another person - under the law, this COULD be considered “assault and battery”.
Assault is the perceived threat of harm (fear induced due to inexperienced / unqualified staff with a shaky hand… - Battery is the wounding.
Pretty sure there has to be a measure of harmful intent - but either way, staff are not indemnified - therefore uninsured… which is probably what’s causing the squeaky bum noises at Cranwell.
(Happy to be corrected @Baldrick )
(About the law, not the noises!)
Would it be possible to split off into a separate discussion on the TG forms and surrounding elements.
I’ve got a few points but not relevant to road marching 
Battery is not Wounding, an assault is anything which causes the apprehension of immediate unlawful force, a battery is the application of that unlawful force.
A wounding, is where all layers of the skin are broken, so popping a blister probably isn’t a wound, but you can nevertheless consent to some forms of wounding, such as piercings and brandings. (And other things the seminal House of Lords case of R v Brown is famous for…)
But it would be Actual Bodily Harm, but again, you can consent to ABH, there are loads of examples of that too, sports, haircuts.
So, I think the issue is consent, does the person who is having the blister popped consent to it?
Which opens whole other issues about age and capacity.
2 Likes
…oh Lordy….
Can… worms… all… over… the place…
Anyone else desperate to turn the clock back to “simpler times”?
- I would just like to point out that we also have active threads on Trump - Russia & China - World War 3 - Is RAFAC in a Death Spiral… but here we are discussing whether or not, with better training we could pop a blister… or let a cadet take paracetamol… or whether an individual’s right to privacy, trumps an organisation’s insistence of being control freaks…
Lets hear it for perspective!
R v Brown is very old law now.
I suppose there is a simple solution; including the following line in the JIs
"Some walkers have found it useful to include a sterile, sharp object to pierce any blisters that may appear whilst you are walking.
As RAFAC CFAVs are not qualified medical professionals* walk leaders will not be able to give any advice regarding the piercing of any blisters. However, we may be able to provide other assistance that falls within our training.
Any cadet who pierces their blister does so at their own risk and accepts full responsibility for the outcome of doing so."
*I know that actually some RMTLs are qualified medical professionals - they’re also the only people I’ve seen pop a blister on a walk.
1 Like
One (probably not) last point…
To try and put how extremely well RM is conducted now - in no small part to the creation of ACROMATI, evolution of the RMTL and progressive syllabus etc and an enormous amount of effort by the RMO and team…
Back in May, a group of us were participating in the Waendel Weekend at Wellingborough - as civvies / individuals… when we encountered a “team” of approximately 50 Army Cadets & staff, in MTP.
Although they started out well, it wasn’t long before their group was spread out… with an estimated 5km between those at the front and those at the back…
Of the 6 staff participating, 5 bailed, leaving one SNCO to oversea the activity - and the remaining staff taking turns to walk with the group, one or two at a time.
When asked, it turned out to be their qualifier for this year’s NM - it was also their ONLY training walk that they had planned for Nijmegen.
When asked what preparation / prior practice or instruction they had shared with the cadets, their answer was “well, it’s more of a recce really… you know, come down… have a craic… see how it goes “
Shocked is an understatement.
Yup - sounds not dissimilar to many OLD stories / legends about mess dinners / rugby dos and the like…
Would they even be covered delivering lancing treatment in a non clinical environment though ?