Okihara,
You really should have a look at the legislation of the so called "confidential incident reporting".
It is an open invitation to a "Star Chamber" destruction of a person's career, and it is not limited to medical issues.
My experience over many years, including assisting pilots in trouble, tells me that what you choose to call "STASI-grade" mistrust is mistrust well warranted.
As I said in my first post, sadly, the easy way out is to sacrifice the accused, on the entirely unwarranted assumption that: "Where there is smoke there is fire". Place the accused in the position that they are guilty as charged, and let them prove their innocence
Some years ago, when CAA/CASA was not quite as disreputable as it is now, on a Friday evening in Canberra I wandered in to a bar that shall remain nameless, there was a group of CAA/CASA Flying Operations Branch having a beer, some of them vaguely recognised me as a familiar face, but not quite really who I was. The conversation was medical matters and several pilots who had lost their Class 1 --- why did these people even know about, it outside of Medical Branch, let alone discuss such matters as a group in a public bar.
Let alone in front of a "stranger" who has been mistaken for "one of their own". The lack of ethics in these matters really is of serious concern.
I have no idea how Mr. Whiteside got the details of the complaints ---- but the obvious answer is that CASA inadvertently gave them to him.
Personally, I think it is COMPLETELY IMPROPER that the accuser can remain confidential, the accused is denied the basic right to confront his or her accuser, a denial of basic justice.
Aviation confidential reporting was never intended for this sort of "confidentiality", but just about every case, in which I have been involved, or where I am aware of the facts, has indeed been this king of malicious reporting.
Tootle pip!!