My intention was not to offend HR professionals because that’s what they are professional, so I apologise.
I have only read the first few responses and gave a view based on my past experiences with HR, I just wish they could provide more constructive assistance sometimes that’s all. I expect they will without a doubt have thoughts on us too.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Rather you than me Kate.

Sorry, rubbish response from me.

Responses to the tough question raised by Kate are very instructive.

On the basis of the information available, the issue is imponderable. On the one hand, generally the professional standards of HR have risen enormously since I joined what was 'IPM' in 1978. Yet, even the recent reconstruction of training standards and qualifications for HR people interested in professional membership includes very little attention to Health and Safety.

Viewing the discussion forums on the CIPD website this week, I've read replies by seasonsed well-intentioned Fellows that indicate profound,and I do mean very elementary, ignorance of straightforward safety laws, e.g. Manual Handling Operations Regs,in relation to the application of The Equality Act 2010. The resentment there to simply questioning 'groupthink' is so sad, in every sense of the word. No blood spilt yet shamefully the harsh words of Jesus about Pharisees fit.

The alcohol issue raised by Kate is a lot more complex; so, there may well be a serious risk that HR folk may pull rank when ignorance of, for example, the insurance issues highlighted in this thread are so significant.

An option open to Kate, in the light of the caution recorded by several experienced safety professionals, is to record in writing the insurance implications and to send the information in confidence to directors as well as to HR.

A diabetic - usually type I - who suffers a hypoglycaemic episode (low blood sugar) may very well present with symptoms akin to drunkeness. The brain uses glucose for its work so low blood glucose levels can result in lowered cognitive functioning, confusion, drowsiness, slurring of speech etc. It is also well understood that a more acute attack can produce a reaction called ketoacidosis. When there is insufficient glucose to be processed by the body it will begin to use stored fats to produce some energy. A byproduct of this use of body fats as a fuel is the production of ketones. With sufficient 'build up' in the system these ketones can be detected in the patient's breath and this smell, best characterised as being like nail varnish or pear drops, is often mistaken for alcohol.

Primary medicine professionals and first-aiders are well aware of this 'problem' and even with this knowledge it can be very easy to misdiagnose a hypoglycaemic attack as simply someone who has simply had "one too many".

Ouch!! Ok, maybe I was being less than helpful, BUT perhaps this particular aspect had a bearing on HR's " stance"?

I think your OP was a little confused about what you actually wanted. It is headed "Advice please" but you end up simply asking for "opinions on the HR stance". I'm not sure quite sure how you expect such opinions (from those not in possession of all the facts) to help.

If you have a situation where you believe a decision by HR is likely to lead to a person injuring themselves or others and exposing your organisation to risk of litigation then you clearly need to take action. In my experience such situations often arise in large organisations not just with colleagues in HR but a range of other specialist colleagues whose decisions or advice impinge on operational management.

From your subsequent posts it would seem you consider that you have taken this as far as you can with HR. You referred to an 'HR team'; have managers further up the HR hierarchy been involved? Assuming they have and continue to maintain the same ‘stance’ I would suggest making a note of the outcome of the meetings you had, sending them a copy and asking if they agree it is a fair summary. You then need to inform them that you continue to believe there are significant risks to both individuals and the organisation* and say you intend to raise the matter through the management structure (see section 7 of IOSH Code of Conduct). It might also be wise to discuss it with your line manager, too!

*Of course, these discussions clarifying the position of each side could end up with you concluding that in this instance the HR professionals approach could be implemented in a way where the risks can be adequately controlled.

Can we establish how the employer recieved copies of the emloyers blood tests? This is possible the most significant, and serious, of the question.