HOSPITAL CASES

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 136, 6 December 1944, Page 7

HOSPITAL CASES

DETAILS OF CONDITION

LEGISLATION PASSED

The clause in the Statutes Amendment Bill dealing with the prohibition of the disclosure of information concerning hospital patients was carried on the voices in the House of Representatives last evening after several Opposition speakers had suggested that It should be withdrawn and a new clause prepared for presentation next year to give adequate protection to hospital patients. Mr. J. T. Watts (National, Riccarton) said in the committee stage of the Bill that the whole clause was an absolute mess from start to finish, and he would be pleased if the Minister would withdraw it and reconsider the matter. The Minister still had power to allow information to be given in certain' circumstances, and that really cut out the whole object of the section. He was also concerned whether the Minister had considered the effects of the clause on the abortion problem. Would the Minister consider holding the clause and next, year bringing down something more restrictive and at the same time make a start on some legislation to help stamp out abortion? The Minister of Health (Mr. Nordmeyer) said that the fact of the matter was that over a long period there had been grave doubts and misunderstanding by hospital board officers, including medical men, as to their duties and responsibilities in the disclosure of information, and that had been particularly so in connection with information that might be used for the purpose of evidence in compensation cases. Cases wene brought to his notice where medical men employed by an insurance company were in the habit of going to the hospital and asking for the files of certain patients, reading those files, and making use of that information for their private use and for their employers' benefit when the case came before the Court. PROTECTION OF PATIENTS. He had asked that in order to protect the interests of the patients in the hospitals legislation should be drafted to safeguard them. There was no other purpose in the clause. The opportunity had also been taken of stating specifically what information medical men or hospital officers might legitimately disclose. Mr. Watts asked why the provision was not made part of the Workers1 Compensation Act so that it would then be in its right perspective. ;- Mr. Nordmeyer replied that, apart jfrom the question of compensation, ; -here might be other reasons why a medical man wanted to know about- a particular case. Mr. R. M. Algie (National, Remuera) said the Opposition desired to see that protection was given to the patient in hospital, but the clause, as drawn, while affording that protection in one part took it away in another by specifying certain persons to whom information might be given and authorising the Minister to prescribe such other people or groups of people who might have access to information. Mr. T. C. Webb (National, Kaipara) said he thought the clause was liable to give patients a wrong impression, and he did not think it had been made any clearer by the Minister's explanation. Mr. Algie, speaking earlier in the second reading debate, said it appeared that the clause referred to a bright and breezy passage-at-arms between the chairman of the Auckland Hospital Board and a Coroner and one-time Magistrate,- Mr. Hunt. He took it that the purpose of the clause was to protect patients who had consulted doctors from any disclosures that the medical men might be asked to make to outsiders. If it was for that it was a good clause. It should not be possible for people seeking information from outside to break through the confidential relationship between doctor ■md. patient. t LITIGATION ASPECT. ! "The Attorney-General (Mr. Mason)" said the clause was not introduced as ja result of the Auckland discussion. The real purpose of the clause was to prevent persons in hospital being worried with the idea that a doctor was questioning them for the purpose of litigation. The clause had been drawn to eliminate that altogether. Mr. Algie: That is not suggested at all by the wording. Mr. Mason: No. It may seem that it goes a long way round, but it was the most convenient way of expressing it. He thought it would be found that the clause' did what it was intended it should do. It might be that it could have been a little more severe, but it was just" as well to go slowly in such matters. The Auckland matter raised a question of whether a change should not be made, but that problem was being left untouched. The clause introduced a definite measure of restriction. !