What is the point with the Occupational Health Service (route of Chemistry. Test) for non-risk professions?
What is the latest guidelines for chemical pathology tests Occupational Health Service "programs? When companies subject to its employees with the screenings, such as PCR, ALT, AST, etc. and workforce urate is closely coupled with the general population and not in any riskgroup (in this case the banking / finance) it seems questionable to carry out the tests. Of course there will be positive tests – but it is in people's best interest to receive an indication sponsored enterprises, normally distributed in a disease without symptoms? Assume that the empoyees have the means to receive adequate health care, regardless of the employer (the set is Sweden, with free public health care). What you say?
I think it is a highly questionable, if employees are or are is feel obliged to take these tests. I live in Sweden and a friend of mine recently, this type of testing when he was offered a new job. The businessman said he was not in its own interest, as it was a very responsible job and wanted her to be sure he was in good shape before she took it. She thought and decided that he would like to know. The employer was not given the results of the tests. Still, I do not like, especially when not ordered (or made) for people seeking employment in the company. But I think it is great if the company offers evidence as a general service to all employees who want (or all employees over 45-50), no ties, no pressure by the employer, and no monitoring by the employer. It is true that health care is almost "free" (that is ie tax funded), primary care facilities but have their hands full with sick people, and few people check their health if they have no pressing symptoms. So if an employer offers as a perk for employees, I think it might be useful.
Health Enrichment Centre Video