Daikon Shield records

Press, 26 February 1986, Page 16

Daikon Shield records

Sir, —“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” This is usually interpreted as institutions should serve man, not vice versa. However, the Canterbury Hospital Board policy apparently makes the institution more important than the women whose needs it was built to meet. Or am I wrong? Was it built to meet the needs of doctors, administrators or pharmaceutical firms? Women, damaged by in-tra-uterine devices, were told they were not generally eligible for accident compensation for

they had known they were taking risks. What is so different about known rugby risks? Footballers get compensation without question. Now, when women may gain that compensation from the American makers of the devices, Canterbury seems to be withholding women’s access to their own records, needed for effective legal action. It is to be hoped the chairman’s hint of a solution, possible in the north, will also be found in Canterbury. — Yours, etc., . ;

B. ROBERTS. February 21, 1986. Sir,—l was appalled to read that the Canterbury Hospital Board had refused to release the medical records of women wishing to sue the makers of the Daikon Shield to these women. I was even more appalled to be told by a local medical practitioner that, in law, medical records were the property of the practitioner, and that patient access to records depended on the good will of the practitioner involved. I had assumed that patients could request their medical records, by right. I find it very disturbing that people do not have access to these records and would like to hear justification of the present situation from the New Zealand Medical Association and the Minister of Health. Failing such justification, I look forward to the early repeal of those laws which deny patients access to their medical records.—Yours, etc., ANNE M. O’BRIEN. February 24, 1986.