Kevin said
What´s the newest guidelines regarding Chemical pathology tests in Occupational Health Service-programmes? When companies subjects their employees with screening tests such as CRP, ALT, AST, Urate etc. and the workforce is closely matched with the general population and not in any riskgroup (in this case banking/finance), I find it questionable to carry out the tests. Of course there will be positive tests - but is it in the persons best interest to recieve a corporate sponsored, normaly distributed indication on an disease with no symptoms? Presuppose that the empoyees have the means to recieve adequate healthcare regardless of the employer (the set is Sweden with free public healthcare). What say you?

Owen said
I think it is a VERY questionable proceedure, if the employees are or are made feel obliged to take such tests. I live in Sweden, and a friend of mine recently had this kind of testing when she was offered a new job. The employer told her that it was merely in her own interest, since it was a job with much responsibility and they wanted her to be sure that she was in good shape before she accepted it. She thought it over and agreed that she would want to know that. The employer was not given the results of the tests. Still, I don't like it at all, especially not when it is ordered (or offered) for people applying for a job in the company. But I think it's great if the company offers testing as a general service to all employees who want it (or all employees over 45-50), with no strings attached, no pressure whatsoever from the employer, and no follow-up from the employer. It's true that health care is almost "free" (that is, tax financed), but primary care institutions have their hands full with sick people, and few people check up their health if they don't have pressing symptoms. So if an employer offers it as an extra benefit for the employees, I think that it could be helpful.

marcoapiva said
dont know