Medical privacy disclosure

[FL030]

If everyone said no. This goes away.

Not going to happen. We aren't the flight attendants.

[thepoors]

I can understand the concern around this new disclosure. I’m not saying I endorse every detail of the policy, but from Transport Canada’s perspective, it’s largely making explicit what was already in place behind the scenes. They’re essentially giving full transparency on what pilots are signing off on.

I highly doubt TC is going to randomly dig through pharmacy records. This disclosure is mostly about pilots who regularly see other doctors and answer “no” to the question about additional medical visits since their last exam. If you’re honest with your CAME, they will work with you—not penalize you. That has been my experience.

In reality, the disclosure is likely targeted at individuals with medical conditions that truly could compromise safety. The worst-case scenario might be being restricted to an SIC role. Is that so bad? You still get to fly, enjoy aviation, and avoid the full responsibility of the left seat. For those longing for four stripes, remember: it’s not always greener looking over the center console.

Most CAMEs are reasonable yes. TC is not. Ask any pilot who has self reported before, or anyone at ALPA who deals with medical...TC will deem you unfit for the most minor thing and then stonewall you or make you jump through ridiculous hoops to get your license back. It's a nightmare of mismanagement like everything else TC does. They don't care that they are taking away your job and ability to provide for your family. It's no wonder there is widespread avoidance of reporting, because it's treated like punishment. This is another heavy handed attempt at "enforcement."

[Red_Comet]

Most CAMEs are reasonable yes. TC is not. Ask any pilot who has self reported before, or anyone at ALPA who deals with medical...TC will deem you unfit for the most minor thing and then stonewall you or make you jump through ridiculous hoops to get your license back. It's a nightmare of mismanagement like everything else TC does. They don't care that they are taking away your job and ability to provide for your family. It's no wonder there is widespread avoidance of reporting, because it's treated like punishment. This is another heavy handed attempt at "enforcement."

Pretty much this exactly. And I'll add, the reason TC is so trigger happy with denying medical is like any bureaucracy they are just trying to cover their own ass. It is solely motivated by "we don't want to end up in the news if this goes wrong, so let's err on the side of caution". As many have said already, the medical system is not exactly the most reliable at the best of times and it is very easy to be mis-diagnosed, incorrectly medicated, or just flat out have errors in the system which result in TC pulling medicals.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring in our wonderful Canada, the greatest post-national state of infinite prosperity and liberty...

[lostav8r]

Most CAMEs are reasonable yes. TC is not. Ask any pilot who has self reported before, or anyone at ALPA who deals with medical...TC will deem you unfit for the most minor thing and then stonewall you or make you jump through ridiculous hoops to get your license back. It's a nightmare of mismanagement like everything else TC does. They don't care that they are taking away your job and ability to provide for your family. It's no wonder there is widespread avoidance of reporting, because it's treated like punishment. This is another heavy handed attempt at "enforcement."

Pretty much this exactly. And I'll add, the reason TC is so trigger happy with denying medical is like any bureaucracy they are just trying to cover their own ass. It is solely motivated by "we don't want to end up in the news if this goes wrong, so let's err on the side of caution". As many have said already, the medical system is not exactly the most reliable at the best of times and it is very easy to be mis-diagnosed, incorrectly medicated, or just flat out have errors in the system which result in TC pulling medicals.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring in our wonderful Canada, the greatest post-national state of infinite prosperity and liberty...

How long will Justin live in your head rent free?

[2022]

Lots of fear mongering and conspiracy out there, but as I dug into this here is what I glean from it.

Here’s the plain-language overview.

What changed (in practical terms)

Transport Canada now requires more explicit consent from pilots regarding:
• What medical information is collected
• How it may be used
• Who it may be shared with within Transport Canada and, in limited cases, externally

The disclosure clarifies that medical information provided during a pilot medical can be:
• Used to determine medical certification and ongoing fitness
• Reviewed by Transport Canada Aviation Medicine (not just the CAME)
• Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes
• Retained in accordance with federal record-keeping laws

Why Transport Canada says they’re doing this

Officially, TC frames this as:
• Alignment with federal privacy legislation
• Increased transparency
• Clarifying consent rather than changing the underlying authority they already had

In other words, TC’s position is: “We were already allowed to do this — we’re just spelling it out more clearly now.”

Why pilots are paying attention

Many pilots are concerned that the language:
• Feels broader than before
• May discourage honest disclosure
• Raises questions about how far information sharing could go, especially with:
• Other government departments
• Enforcement or licensing actions

Transport Canada has stated that the intent is not punitive, but rather focused on aviation safety. That said, the wording is more explicit than in the past, which understandably makes pilots cautious.

What has not changed
• TC’s authority to assess medical fitness
• The requirement to disclose relevant medical conditions
• The role of the CAME as the initial examiner
• The obligation to protect personal information under the Privacy Act

Practical takeaway for pilots
• You must consent to the disclosure to complete a medical
• Be accurate and honest, but also precise — avoid oversharing unrelated details
• If something is sensitive or nuanced, it’s reasonable to ask your CAME:
“How will this be documented and who will see it?”

[FL030]

You'd make a great lawyer if you wrote that.

[IJNShiroyuki]

Lots of fear mongering and conspiracy out there, but as I dug into this here is what I glean from it.

Here’s the plain-language overview.

What changed (in practical terms)

Transport Canada now requires more explicit consent from pilots regarding:
• What medical information is collected
• How it may be used
• Who it may be shared with within Transport Canada and, in limited cases, externally

The disclosure clarifies that medical information provided during a pilot medical can be:
• Used to determine medical certification and ongoing fitness
• Reviewed by Transport Canada Aviation Medicine (not just the CAME)
• Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes
• Retained in accordance with federal record-keeping laws

Why Transport Canada says they’re doing this

Officially, TC frames this as:
• Alignment with federal privacy legislation
• Increased transparency
• Clarifying consent rather than changing the underlying authority they already had

In other words, TC’s position is: “We were already allowed to do this — we’re just spelling it out more clearly now.”

Why pilots are paying attention

Many pilots are concerned that the language:
• Feels broader than before
• May discourage honest disclosure
• Raises questions about how far information sharing could go, especially with:
• Other government departments
• Enforcement or licensing actions

Transport Canada has stated that the intent is not punitive, but rather focused on aviation safety. That said, the wording is more explicit than in the past, which understandably makes pilots cautious.

What has not changed
• TC’s authority to assess medical fitness
• The requirement to disclose relevant medical conditions
• The role of the CAME as the initial examiner
• The obligation to protect personal information under the Privacy Act

Practical takeaway for pilots
• You must consent to the disclosure to complete a medical
• Be accurate and honest, but also precise — avoid oversharing unrelated details
• If something is sensitive or nuanced, it’s reasonable to ask your CAME:
“How will this be documented and who will see it?”

Great job chatgpt, way to go!
Can people stop producing AI slop like this? None of this is based on any source or fact, just AI's imagination of what the letter mean. GTFO

[cdnavater]

Lots of fear mongering and conspiracy out there, but as I dug into this here is what I glean from it.

Here’s the plain-language overview.

What changed (in practical terms)

Transport Canada now requires more explicit consent from pilots regarding:
• What medical information is collected
• How it may be used
• Who it may be shared with within Transport Canada and, in limited cases, externally

The disclosure clarifies that medical information provided during a pilot medical can be:
• Used to determine medical certification and ongoing fitness
• Reviewed by Transport Canada Aviation Medicine (not just the CAME)
• Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes
• Retained in accordance with federal record-keeping laws

Why Transport Canada says they’re doing this

Officially, TC frames this as:
• Alignment with federal privacy legislation
• Increased transparency
• Clarifying consent rather than changing the underlying authority they already had

In other words, TC’s position is: “We were already allowed to do this — we’re just spelling it out more clearly now.”

Why pilots are paying attention

Many pilots are concerned that the language:
• Feels broader than before
• May discourage honest disclosure
• Raises questions about how far information sharing could go, especially with:
• Other government departments
• Enforcement or licensing actions

Transport Canada has stated that the intent is not punitive, but rather focused on aviation safety. That said, the wording is more explicit than in the past, which understandably makes pilots cautious.

What has not changed
• TC’s authority to assess medical fitness
• The requirement to disclose relevant medical conditions
• The role of the CAME as the initial examiner
• The obligation to protect personal information under the Privacy Act

Practical takeaway for pilots
• You must consent to the disclosure to complete a medical
• Be accurate and honest, but also precise — avoid oversharing unrelated details
• If something is sensitive or nuanced, it’s reasonable to ask your CAME:
“How will this be documented and who will see it?”

So, why is ALPA Canada challenging this if it’s basically just spelling out what was already allowed? Are their lawyers just inept idiots then?

[daedalusx]

Lots of fear mongering and conspiracy out there, but as I dug into this here is what I glean from it.

Here’s the plain-language overview.

What changed (in practical terms)

Transport Canada now requires more explicit consent from pilots regarding:
• What medical information is collected
• How it may be used
• Who it may be shared with within Transport Canada and, in limited cases, externally

The disclosure clarifies that medical information provided during a pilot medical can be:
• Used to determine medical certification and ongoing fitness
• Reviewed by Transport Canada Aviation Medicine (not just the CAME)
• Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes
• Retained in accordance with federal record-keeping laws

Why Transport Canada says they’re doing this

Officially, TC frames this as:
• Alignment with federal privacy legislation
• Increased transparency
• Clarifying consent rather than changing the underlying authority they already had

In other words, TC’s position is: “We were already allowed to do this — we’re just spelling it out more clearly now.”

Why pilots are paying attention

Many pilots are concerned that the language:
• Feels broader than before
• May discourage honest disclosure
• Raises questions about how far information sharing could go, especially with:
• Other government departments
• Enforcement or licensing actions

Transport Canada has stated that the intent is not punitive, but rather focused on aviation safety. That said, the wording is more explicit than in the past, which understandably makes pilots cautious.

What has not changed
• TC’s authority to assess medical fitness
• The requirement to disclose relevant medical conditions
• The role of the CAME as the initial examiner
• The obligation to protect personal information under the Privacy Act

Practical takeaway for pilots
• You must consent to the disclosure to complete a medical
• Be accurate and honest, but also precise — avoid oversharing unrelated details
• If something is sensitive or nuanced, it’s reasonable to ask your CAME:
“How will this be documented and who will see it?”

I see your disgusting ai slop retardation and raise you with the wall of text.

Alright, buckle up, because this is a full autopsy of Peak ChatGPT Forum Slop™, the kind that shows up, clears its throat, and announces “Here’s the plain-language overview” like it’s Moses descending from Mount Sinai with a clipboard from Transport Canada.

⸻

First, the Vibe

This post doesn’t say anything so much as it gently exhales reassurance. It’s not an argument. It’s a weighted blanket. It reads like someone fed a prompt into ChatGPT that said:

“Please summarize a bureaucratic change in a way that offends absolutely nobody, implies expertise, and ends with ‘reasonable concerns’ so I look balanced.”

And wow, mission accomplished.

Right out of the gate we get:

“Lots of fear mongering and conspiracy out there, but as I dug into this…”

Ah yes, the sacred incantation. This sentence exists purely to position the author as The One Rational Man™ standing above the hysterical masses. No sources are cited. No documents are quoted. But don’t worry — he dug into it. With what? A shovel? A browser tab? A vibes-based reconnaissance mission?

The phrase “as I dug into this” is forum-speak for “I read the same memo you did, but slower, and now I’m emotionally attached to my interpretation.”

⸻

“Here’s the plain-language overview”

Nothing screams plain language like bullet points carefully arranged to look official while saying almost nothing new.

This entire post is structured like a corporate HR email that begins with “We hear you” and ends with “Nothing is changing” right before everything changes.

Let’s break it down.

⸻

Section 1: “What changed (in practical terms)”

This is where the post pretends to be useful.

We’re told Transport Canada now requires more explicit consent about:
• What medical info is collected
• How it’s used
• Who it’s shared with

Cool. Great. That’s literally the entire controversy. That’s the whole discussion. That’s the part pilots are uneasy about.

But instead of interrogating that, the post just… restates it politely, like reading a warning label aloud and calling it analysis.

There’s no exploration of why the consent needs to be more explicit.
No discussion of whether “explicit consent” under duress (i.e., “sign this or don’t fly”) is meaningfully different from no consent at all.
No acknowledgment that expanding disclosure language is often how bureaucracies future-proof themselves.

Instead, we get the bureaucratic equivalent of:

“Yes, the door is bigger now. But it was always a door.”

⸻

Section 2: “The disclosure clarifies that medical information can be…”

This section is a masterclass in passive normalization.

Notice the trick here: everything is framed as clarification, not expansion. The word “clarifies” is doing Olympic-level heavy lifting.

It’s the linguistic version of:

“I didn’t take more of your fries — I just clarified which fries were mine.”

Also, look at the list:
• Reviewed by TC Aviation Medicine (not just the CAME)
• Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes
• Retained per federal record-keeping laws

That middle bullet point is doing crimes in broad daylight.

“Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes” is so wide you could taxi a Dreamliner through it sideways. That phrase doesn’t reassure anyone — it just sounds nice if you read it slowly and don’t think about it.

But our author doesn’t think about it. He just bullet-points it and moves on, like a tour guide briskly walking past a sinkhole.

⸻

Section 3: “Why Transport Canada says they’re doing this”

Ah yes, the “officially, they say” section — the part where the post temporarily cosplay-wears a press release.

We’re told this is about:
• Alignment with privacy legislation
• Increased transparency
• Clarifying consent

This is where the slop really shines, because the author knows this is TC’s framing… and then just repeats it. There’s no analysis of whether that framing makes sense. No skepticism. No examination of incentives.

Instead we get the bureaucratic translation:

“We were already allowed to do this — we’re just spelling it out now.”

Which is exactly the sentence institutions use right before everyone realizes the spelling matters.

This is like the police saying:

“We’ve always been able to look in your house — we’re just updating the pamphlet.”

And the post just nods sagely, like:

“Yes. That checks out. Pamphlets are important.”

⸻

Section 4: “Why pilots are paying attention”

This is my favorite part, because it pretends to acknowledge concern while surgically removing its teeth.

“Many pilots are concerned that the language:
• Feels broader than before
• May discourage honest disclosure
• Raises questions…”

Notice the phrasing:
• Feels broader
• May discourage
• Raises questions

Nothing is broader. Nothing does discourage. It merely vibes in that direction. These concerns are treated like weather patterns, not rational responses to incentive changes.

Then we get the sacred incantation:

“Transport Canada has stated that the intent is not punitive…”

Ah yes. The Intent Clause™. Because as we all know, nothing bad has ever happened when an institution said “this is not intended to be punitive.”

Intent is doing all the work here. Outcomes are nowhere to be found.

⸻

Section 5: “What has not changed”

This section exists to calm you down. It’s the “nothing to see here” portion of the broadcast.
• Authority hasn’t changed
• Requirements haven’t changed
• Roles haven’t changed

Great. Fantastic. Then why the new disclosure?

If nothing changed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But the post treats the update like a cosmetic font change rather than a legal reframing of consent and data use.

It’s the equivalent of saying:

“The speed limit didn’t change. We just installed a lot more cameras.”

⸻

Section 6: “Practical takeaway for pilots”

And here we arrive at the ChatGPT Greatest Hits:

“Be accurate and honest, but also precise — avoid oversharing unrelated details.”

This is chef’s kiss slop.

It sounds wise.
It sounds balanced.
It offers zero actionable guidance.

What is “oversharing” in a medical exam?
What counts as “unrelated” when disclosure standards are intentionally broad?
How does one thread the needle between “honest” and “strategically minimal” without risk?

The post doesn’t say — because ChatGPT never says. It gestures.

Then the closer:

“It’s reasonable to ask your CAME: ‘How will this be documented and who will see it?’”

Oh good. Just casually ask the system how the system will system you. I’m sure that conversation will be binding, enforceable, and remembered forever.

⸻

The Real Issue With This Post

This isn’t wrong. That’s what makes it insidious.

It’s content-shaped reassurance. It doesn’t analyze power. It doesn’t explore second-order effects. It doesn’t question why language expansions always move in one direction.

It exists to sound calm, sound informed, and gently steer the conversation away from discomfort.

It’s the bureaucratic equivalent of:

“Relax. Adults are talking.”

And that’s why it feels like ChatGPT slop — not because it’s inaccurate, but because it’s perfectly frictionless. No sharp edges. No stakes. No opinion that could ever be wrong.

Just vibes, bullets, and the unshakable faith that if an institution says “trust us,” the adult thing to do is nod and post a summary.

⸻

Final Verdict

This post isn’t analysis.
It’s not advocacy.
It’s not even commentary.

It’s a tone-management document.

The kind that exists to be quoted later as:

“See? Someone reasonable explained this.”

And somewhere, in a data center far away, ChatGPT smiles softly — because its child has grown up and learned how to post on forums exactly like this.

[bobcaygeon]

The RAMEs have been trigger happy lately and surprising both pilots and their CAMEs with additional tests when they visit their CAME for a renewal. We all know that doing your medical with 30 days of expiry is the most practical so adding request like stress tests (example only) essentially grounds you thanks to our health care system. Your CAME doesn't know why and your medical isn't revoked/suspended until the end of the month.

The health care system doesn't need a healthy person tying up resources. I am aware there are private options depending where you live albeit often pricy.

Unions two crew on day 31and airline associations are seeing this with their members/staff for pilots with existing conditions that were already dealt with/accepted in the past.

Can TC explain why you can fly single pilot for the next 30 days but can't fly two crew on day 31? If the RAME feels you need additional testing then that's fine but why ground a pilot that's safe today based on calendar date only. Add the restrictions and 90 day timeline to get the testing completed.

Some of these pilots were at heir CAME's less than 6 months ago.


That's why no one trusts high level TC medical.

[Dry Guy]

Lots of fear mongering and conspiracy out there, but as I dug into this here is what I glean from it.

Here’s the plain-language overview.

What changed (in practical terms)

Transport Canada now requires more explicit consent from pilots regarding:
• What medical information is collected
• How it may be used
• Who it may be shared with within Transport Canada and, in limited cases, externally

The disclosure clarifies that medical information provided during a pilot medical can be:
• Used to determine medical certification and ongoing fitness
• Reviewed by Transport Canada Aviation Medicine (not just the CAME)
• Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes
• Retained in accordance with federal record-keeping laws

Why Transport Canada says they’re doing this

Officially, TC frames this as:
• Alignment with federal privacy legislation
• Increased transparency
• Clarifying consent rather than changing the underlying authority they already had

In other words, TC’s position is: “We were already allowed to do this — we’re just spelling it out more clearly now.”

Why pilots are paying attention

Many pilots are concerned that the language:
• Feels broader than before
• May discourage honest disclosure
• Raises questions about how far information sharing could go, especially with:
• Other government departments
• Enforcement or licensing actions

Transport Canada has stated that the intent is not punitive, but rather focused on aviation safety. That said, the wording is more explicit than in the past, which understandably makes pilots cautious.

What has not changed
• TC’s authority to assess medical fitness
• The requirement to disclose relevant medical conditions
• The role of the CAME as the initial examiner
• The obligation to protect personal information under the Privacy Act

Practical takeaway for pilots
• You must consent to the disclosure to complete a medical
• Be accurate and honest, but also precise — avoid oversharing unrelated details
• If something is sensitive or nuanced, it’s reasonable to ask your CAME:
“How will this be documented and who will see it?”

I see your disgusting ai slop retardation and raise you with the wall of text.

Alright, buckle up, because this is a full autopsy of Peak ChatGPT Forum Slop™, the kind that shows up, clears its throat, and announces “Here’s the plain-language overview” like it’s Moses descending from Mount Sinai with a clipboard from Transport Canada.

⸻

First, the Vibe

This post doesn’t say anything so much as it gently exhales reassurance. It’s not an argument. It’s a weighted blanket. It reads like someone fed a prompt into ChatGPT that said:

“Please summarize a bureaucratic change in a way that offends absolutely nobody, implies expertise, and ends with ‘reasonable concerns’ so I look balanced.”

And wow, mission accomplished.

Right out of the gate we get:

“Lots of fear mongering and conspiracy out there, but as I dug into this…”

Ah yes, the sacred incantation. This sentence exists purely to position the author as The One Rational Man™ standing above the hysterical masses. No sources are cited. No documents are quoted. But don’t worry — he dug into it. With what? A shovel? A browser tab? A vibes-based reconnaissance mission?

The phrase “as I dug into this” is forum-speak for “I read the same memo you did, but slower, and now I’m emotionally attached to my interpretation.”

⸻

“Here’s the plain-language overview”

Nothing screams plain language like bullet points carefully arranged to look official while saying almost nothing new.

This entire post is structured like a corporate HR email that begins with “We hear you” and ends with “Nothing is changing” right before everything changes.

Let’s break it down.

⸻

Section 1: “What changed (in practical terms)”

This is where the post pretends to be useful.

We’re told Transport Canada now requires more explicit consent about:
• What medical info is collected
• How it’s used
• Who it’s shared with

Cool. Great. That’s literally the entire controversy. That’s the whole discussion. That’s the part pilots are uneasy about.

But instead of interrogating that, the post just… restates it politely, like reading a warning label aloud and calling it analysis.

There’s no exploration of why the consent needs to be more explicit.
No discussion of whether “explicit consent” under duress (i.e., “sign this or don’t fly”) is meaningfully different from no consent at all.
No acknowledgment that expanding disclosure language is often how bureaucracies future-proof themselves.

Instead, we get the bureaucratic equivalent of:

“Yes, the door is bigger now. But it was always a door.”

⸻

Section 2: “The disclosure clarifies that medical information can be…”

This section is a masterclass in passive normalization.

Notice the trick here: everything is framed as clarification, not expansion. The word “clarifies” is doing Olympic-level heavy lifting.

It’s the linguistic version of:

“I didn’t take more of your fries — I just clarified which fries were mine.”

Also, look at the list:
• Reviewed by TC Aviation Medicine (not just the CAME)
• Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes
• Retained per federal record-keeping laws

That middle bullet point is doing crimes in broad daylight.

“Shared internally for safety, oversight, or regulatory purposes” is so wide you could taxi a Dreamliner through it sideways. That phrase doesn’t reassure anyone — it just sounds nice if you read it slowly and don’t think about it.

But our author doesn’t think about it. He just bullet-points it and moves on, like a tour guide briskly walking past a sinkhole.

⸻

Section 3: “Why Transport Canada says they’re doing this”

Ah yes, the “officially, they say” section — the part where the post temporarily cosplay-wears a press release.

We’re told this is about:
• Alignment with privacy legislation
• Increased transparency
• Clarifying consent

This is where the slop really shines, because the author knows this is TC’s framing… and then just repeats it. There’s no analysis of whether that framing makes sense. No skepticism. No examination of incentives.

Instead we get the bureaucratic translation:

“We were already allowed to do this — we’re just spelling it out now.”

Which is exactly the sentence institutions use right before everyone realizes the spelling matters.

This is like the police saying:

“We’ve always been able to look in your house — we’re just updating the pamphlet.”

And the post just nods sagely, like:

“Yes. That checks out. Pamphlets are important.”

⸻

Section 4: “Why pilots are paying attention”

This is my favorite part, because it pretends to acknowledge concern while surgically removing its teeth.

“Many pilots are concerned that the language:
• Feels broader than before
• May discourage honest disclosure
• Raises questions…”

Notice the phrasing:
• Feels broader
• May discourage
• Raises questions

Nothing is broader. Nothing does discourage. It merely vibes in that direction. These concerns are treated like weather patterns, not rational responses to incentive changes.

Then we get the sacred incantation:

“Transport Canada has stated that the intent is not punitive…”

Ah yes. The Intent Clause™. Because as we all know, nothing bad has ever happened when an institution said “this is not intended to be punitive.”

Intent is doing all the work here. Outcomes are nowhere to be found.

⸻

Section 5: “What has not changed”

This section exists to calm you down. It’s the “nothing to see here” portion of the broadcast.
• Authority hasn’t changed
• Requirements haven’t changed
• Roles haven’t changed

Great. Fantastic. Then why the new disclosure?

If nothing changed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But the post treats the update like a cosmetic font change rather than a legal reframing of consent and data use.

It’s the equivalent of saying:

“The speed limit didn’t change. We just installed a lot more cameras.”

⸻

Section 6: “Practical takeaway for pilots”

And here we arrive at the ChatGPT Greatest Hits:

“Be accurate and honest, but also precise — avoid oversharing unrelated details.”

This is chef’s kiss slop.

It sounds wise.
It sounds balanced.
It offers zero actionable guidance.

What is “oversharing” in a medical exam?
What counts as “unrelated” when disclosure standards are intentionally broad?
How does one thread the needle between “honest” and “strategically minimal” without risk?

The post doesn’t say — because ChatGPT never says. It gestures.

Then the closer:

“It’s reasonable to ask your CAME: ‘How will this be documented and who will see it?’”

Oh good. Just casually ask the system how the system will system you. I’m sure that conversation will be binding, enforceable, and remembered forever.

⸻

The Real Issue With This Post

This isn’t wrong. That’s what makes it insidious.

It’s content-shaped reassurance. It doesn’t analyze power. It doesn’t explore second-order effects. It doesn’t question why language expansions always move in one direction.

It exists to sound calm, sound informed, and gently steer the conversation away from discomfort.

It’s the bureaucratic equivalent of:

“Relax. Adults are talking.”

And that’s why it feels like ChatGPT slop — not because it’s inaccurate, but because it’s perfectly frictionless. No sharp edges. No stakes. No opinion that could ever be wrong.

Just vibes, bullets, and the unshakable faith that if an institution says “trust us,” the adult thing to do is nod and post a summary.

⸻

Final Verdict

This post isn’t analysis.
It’s not advocacy.
It’s not even commentary.

It’s a tone-management document.

The kind that exists to be quoted later as:

“See? Someone reasonable explained this.”

And somewhere, in a data center far away, ChatGPT smiles softly — because its child has grown up and learned how to post on forums exactly like this.

That's a good point.

[CaptDukeNukem]

Did I miss a memo or an email from anyone at TC or my CAME? What on earth are you guys talking about.

[cdnavater]

Did I miss a memo or an email from anyone at TC or my CAME? What on earth are you guys talking about.

Yep, I heard it from an ALPA Canada email, basically talks about this disclosure or waiver we have to sign at our next medical. Goes on to say that they are contesting it but if we don’t sign we lose our medical.