That's a great answer, but I can tell you that this is not what happens in practice. I don't buy the fact that a person with some medical training can be a doctor all of a sudden, and can be handed a case to determine whether or not a patient has post-traumatic stress based on the medical data available to them. Even if these people completed their medical training, they wouldn't be doctors. They cannot give a diagnosis, because they are not doctors. The only person who can make a diagnosis is a doctor.
Once a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress is established by a doctor, either by the attending physician or by the Canadian Forces doctor, I assume that the board members are bound by that diagnosis. If they are not bound by the attending physician's diagnosis, I suppose they go by the decision of the Canadian Forces doctor. If there is a difference between the two diagnoses, if the doctors don't agree, and, for example, the attending physician gives a post-traumatic stress diagnosis whereas the Canadian Forces doctor doesn't, the case has to go to another board. The kind of board that we should have should be made up of doctors, not members with just some medical training, because they don't have the proper training for giving a diagnosis or making a decision.
If that's how your board members reach a decision on a post-traumatic stress diagnosis, I have a real problem with it. They cannot make decisions like that. I speak from experience, since I have worked for 20 years on the CSST board, where they deal with pretty much the same things. We can in fact compare post-traumatic stress cases to accidents that occur in factories. It could be someone whose hand got caught in a machine and was cut off, and other workers were there when it happened. We've experienced cases like that, we've heard of them. The only people able to give a diagnosis and make a decision are doctors, the ones who have the paper to prove it.
You are telling me about cases where, though there is no medical documentation, family members testify to what the people went through. Your legislation should stipulate that medical proof is needed to establish the cause and effect relationship between the diagnosis and the person's condition. It is unthinkable that the testimony of family members would be enough to change the board's decision. At the time of the administrative review decision, meaning the first review after the request, what does your board do to establish the medical relationship if there is no medical paperwork?