NOT PERMISSIBLE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 256, 26 July 1935, Page 13

NOT PERMISSIBLE

Outside Use of Patients’ Medical Reports HOSPITAL DECISION “No employee or other person who perforins any work on behalf of Hie hospital board shall give to any person, linn or company any information concerning a patient's medical record. This motion, which, it was stated for different reasons on both sides in a vigorous argument, will have a farreaching effect, was passed by ten votes to four by the Wellington Hospital Board last night. The discussion arose out of an application by Dr. E. IV. Giesen to be granted permission to have access to patients’ medical records. Tlie house committee recommended tliat this should not be allowed, and Mr. A. 11. Croskery forwarded the motion. After an amendment that the question should be reported on by a committee bad been lost, also by four votes to ten, Dr. Giesen’s request was refused. He was very much surprised to fin' l that medical men were having free access to patients’ charts and even access to tlie chart room in which the reports were written up, said Mr. Croskery. It appeared there was some long-standing regulation allowing insurance companies to write to the superintendent asking for reports. These were given by the doctor who attended the patient. Tlie company paid a guinea ; 10/6 went to the doctor and 10/G to the hospital board. Dr. Giesen's request was a surprising one. he said. in every compensation ease that went to the courts the hospital charges in L'tlli were first deducted Iron) the cheque to the solicitor and sent to the hospital. 'That was indubitable proof that the man paid. He had heard all his life that immediately a man went into a medical surgery the medical man's mouth was closed concerning anything said there or anything else that, took place. Yet insurance companies had been allowed this privilege. Sometimes when a man claimed health insurance money the company’s representatives were able, by searching hospital records, to tell him Ills blood tost showed that at some period in his life lie had suffered from venereal disease. There were such cases reported as having come under the Arbitration Court, if the man considered he should get more given him the company would say that if he did not accept settlement the ease would be'taken to the Arbitration Court, and lie would be faced with having published in the papers the fact that he had suffered previously from the disease.

Opposing the motion, Dr. D. M. Wilson said that the question arose sometimes as to whether a person’s injury had been induced by a previous complaint. Naturally, the insurance company would not pay out until it had received a certificate clearing up any such suggestion. Also, if a patient had an operation at the hospital and returned to an outlying district or to some other part of the country, doctors trying to treat subsequent complaints could not, as they did now. send to the hospital to find out details of the initial operation. The motion was too farreaching. It should be referred to a coinmittee’to bring down a report. It was not for the board to usurp the duty of a court, which was to weigh any such evidence and do justice to everyone.

Mr. Croskery had overstepped the markaltogether, and he could not realise that it was restricting medical practice and was not to the benefit of the patient,.said the chairman. Mr. F. Castle. It must certainly be laid down that the widsprend beneficial effect of the use of records must not be interfered with. 11 was essential for the profession. Continuing. Mr. Castle read a letter on the subject of tile motion sent to the board by Mr. (.!• A. L. Treadwell. who was not present at the meeting. Mr. Treadwellstated that he was very anxious not only in the interests (l f the injured persons but also in the interests of justice. The suggestion was dangerous and most unfair to the injured person. “It would be u very serious and retrograde step which would serve, no useful purpose and might do grave harm, apart altogether from bringing the hospital board into disrepute,’’ Mr. Treadwell concluded. , Mr. G. Y. Berry remarked that all the insurance companies wanted was the truth. Mr. J. Glover said insurance companies paid only what they were compelled to pay. If it was found that the motion was damaging to the health interests of a patient, it could be revised later.