Can my dentist do this? Isn't this discrimination?

foxtrotoscar_2

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

I'm giving up here I'm afraid - you're either not bothering to read my posts/replies or certain things just aren't registering.

They had to notify unless there were exceptional circumstances. What were the exceptional circumstances? :wall:

They didn't have to notify you. The word used is 'should' not 'must'. 'Should' means it's not compulsory. 'Must' means it is compulsory.

MrHeisenberg

mollycat wrote: »

Hello again.

Ile try and explain my previous post, (#135), although why you would think I now have a "bruised ego" after interacting with yourself I have no idea

The content within the thread that bothers me, (and provokes my reluctance to stay involved), is your fervour to exploit disability legislation, (the links you posted for me), and your conviction of its appropriateness to you.

I work with disabled people every day, disabled through mental health issues, lifelong conditions such as Schizophrenia etc.

I have never met you obviously, so have no objective information regarding your health, only your account throughout the thread.

Depression is treatable and many people make a full recovery. Someone who has had an episode of depression and is recovered would be unlikely to consider them "disabled". We would not encourage someone who is currently depressed to regard themselves as "disabled", a more positive mindset focussing on a return to normality will aid recovery.

Over my career I cant recall someone suffering from depression using that as a reason to justify irritability and "grumpiness". In your case from what Ive read here, sounds more like an entitlement that certain personality traits of yours are accepted carte blanche by others.

Similarly, I find it unusual that "facial pain" can be a credible descriptor for disability; I had a headache yesterday, (before I found this thread folks, honest ), was I "disabled" at that point?

Further down the continuum, do persons with lifelong medical conditions such as athsma and hypertension, regard themselves as "disabled"?

I dont think so.

The reason I left the thread is that I think there is a genuine debate to be had regarding access to services and rights for disabled people, I dont want to read or be involved in something that trivialises the issue with spurious "discrimination" due to facial pain and grumpiness.

Im with baza; this thread should be ignored, there's not a shred of usefulness or positivity within it.

Is your alleged role in the mental health field one that requires you not to judge people? I'm afraid the contents of your post is extremely judgemental - just my opinion.

Also, it seems to me you don't understand equality law in the slightest, because if you did, you would be more understanding.

I appreciate the fact that you don't like the word "disabled" but I was only using it in the context of disability discrimination law.

Unfortunately, some people just don't get better. I have been struggling with depression since childhood and it has only gotten worse.

In terms of equality law the cause/name of the impairment is of little importance - it is the adverse effects the condition carries. If a person suffers from regular migraine headaches over a period of a year or more and this significantly affects what would be regarded as day-to-day life then this is regarded as a disability. Also, the effects of treatment are disregarded.

Further down the continuum, do persons with lifelong medical conditions such as asthma and hypertension, regard themselves as "disabled"?

As above, if the condition has lasted more than a year and the condition significantly affects what would be regarded as day-to-day life then this is regarded as a disability for the purposes of the Act.

Did you actually read the posts where I've said I've proved these issues in a legal setting before?

LABMAN

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

Is your alleged role in the mental health field one that requires you not to judge people? I'm afraid the contents of your post is extremely judgemental - just my opinion.

Also, it seems to me you don't understand equality law in the slightest, because if you did, you would be more understanding.

I appreciate the fact that you don't like the word "disabled" but I was only using it in the context of disability discrimination law.

Unfortunately, some people just don't get better. I have been struggling with depression since childhood and it has only gotten worse.

In terms of equality law the cause/name of the impairment is of little importance - it is the adverse effects the condition carries. If a person suffers from regular migraine headaches over a period of a year or more and this significantly affects what would be regarded as day-to-day life then this is regarded as a disability. Also, the effects of treatment are disregarded.

Further down the continuum, do persons with lifelong medical conditions such as asthma and hypertension, regard themselves as "disabled"?

As above, if the condition has lasted more than a year and the condition significantly affects what would be regarded as day-to-day life then this is regarded as a disability for the purposes of the Act.

Did you actually read the posts where I've said I've proved these issues in a legal setting before?

Where you've 'alleged' you proved them?

MrHeisenberg

Comms69 wrote: »

No, that's not discrimination.

And this is because?

MrHeisenberg

LABMAN wrote: »

Where you've 'alleged' you proved them?

Bearing in mind the judgemental comments on this forum, I will opt not to divulge that information.

MrHeisenberg

Pollycat wrote: »

Then I think you've had all the advice you're going to get on this forum.
You are not going to convince posters on this thread that you are in the right and that your dentist was in the wrong.
Therefore I recommend that you do this and spend your time and effort taking whatever action you feel is suitable for the situation you are in.
I wish you good luck with your legal action if that is the way you are going.

Yes, it seems people resent others who stand up for themselves, probably because they lack courage/nous themselves - just my opinion.

MrHeisenberg

k3lvc wrote: »

So everyone else is wrong and you're right ? Seems to eb the story of your posting history

The thread serves no purpose other than for you to shout DISCRIMINATION and COMPENSATION and should be closed before degenerating further

Yes, there is clearly a lot of ganging up and mob/herd mentality on this thread - I seriously regret starting what I thought was a reasonable debate.

Pollycat

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

Yes, there is clearly a lot of ganging up and mob/herd mentality on this thread - I seriously regret starting what I thought was a reasonable debate.

Then take the action you think is appropriate and move on.

MrHeisenberg

Pollycat wrote: »

Then take the action you think is appropriate and move on.

Indeed. If nothing else this thread has demonstrated how ignorant people are when it comes to equality legislation. I strongly suspect my dentist was just as ignorant.

Cyclizine

It's not discrimination. You do not have a protected characteristic. The relationship has clearly broken down. The dentist has every right to decline to treat you. Other dentists, like your private one, are available.