DUTY OF SECRECY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20827, 4 July 1942, Page 5

DUTY OF SECRECY

doctor and PATIENT BOARD’S LEGAL OPINION The absolute nature of the confidential relationship that should exist between a patient in hospital and any medical man who may attend him or have access to his records there was asserted in a legal opinion reported to a meeting of the Auckland Hospital Board. The board had received an inquiry from a legal firm which stated that it acted for a number of trade unions and consequently had a number of compensation cases where clients were treated in the public hospital. The inquiry asked whether records made of patients, including X-ray photographs, Were available to any person other than the patient’s own doctor; whether reports made by hospital authorities concerning a patient were available to any person having an interest possibly adverse to the patient’s; whether a doctor attending a public hospital patient kept secret from persons having a possible adverse Interest knowledge that he was given by or gained concerning the patient; and whether any doctor employed about the hospital could accept a retainer-from any person, including an insurance company, having a possible adverse interest to the patient; Moral and Legal Duties There was no objection to information being given by hospital authorities or doctors in a court when any matter was properly before a court. The question was whether any person had a right to information usually considered confidential between doctor and patient without going to court and without the patient’s permission. The opinion stated by the board’s solicitors was that a moral obligation 'rested upon every medical practitioner to respect the confidence of a patient. Whether there was also a legal duty had not been judicially determined. In New Zealand the duty of secrecy did not extend to evidence given ill criminal proceedings, in which a doctor could be compelled to give Evidence obtained in his professional capacity; but the Evidence A C L 1908, provided that a doctor "should hot,' without the consent of his patient, divulge'in civil proceedings' any cofnmuhicatiommade to him by a patient, although this protection did not extend to' information which the 1 physician *' acquired by examination of the patient. Retainers Precluded Apart from court proceedings, how-ever,-the duty bf secredy: v extefided to aIT information acquirda’by d 'ddctoh It had also been laid down in two New Zealand bases that • privilege extended to records' ’kept- at a- hospital,' which could not be produced in civil proceedings without the "patient’s consent. "’"' : -” V; - tfc* - r ‘ nr 1 ' “A medical practitioner, even though he be ahhember of the'hospital visiting staff,’’; the legal opinibn continued, “should not '’be permitted tb’ihsghet hospital recordi -phi- th’6 "purpose “pf passing- on ihformation |a or advising art ; 1 insurance'" ; company; ’ ‘ 'Tips'' rule would preclude a member of the-visit-ing staff : from' ! accepting ; a retainer or acting- as adviser' to any person oi company whose interests'werh adverse to those 'tif " a patient' whom such' member of the staff 'had attended.’’ There was no definite evidence that any doctors engaged at the hospital had been drawing insurance company retainers, said the chairman, Mr. Allan J. Moody, replying to a question from Mrs. M. M. Dreaver, M.P!, as to whether some doctors were acting in a dual capacity. It was asserted, she said, that some patients had been made victims. The position would have to be very jealously safeguarded, said the chairman. The legal opinion would he handed to the medical superintendent, and the medical staff would be required to keep within it.