DOCTORS MUST TELL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18323, 13 August 1921, Page 7

DOCTORS MUST TELL

SECRECY PLEDGE OYER-RULED BY JUDGE. NO PRIVILEGE IN LAW. Is a doctor exempt from disclosing in a court of law wliat happened between him and a patient at a clinic? This question, which has been raised before in one form or another, was discussed in the Divorce Court in London recently before Air Justice Hurridge. During the hearing of a husband’s petition, after the petitioner had given evidence, his counsel desired to call Dr John Elliott, of Cheater. Dr Elliott, on entering the box, said ho claimed the “privilege” of doctor and patient, and asked to be relieved of the necessity of giving evidence. Mi Justice Horridge said there was no privilege for a doctor in a court of law. Ho ordered him to answer the questions. Dr Elliott said that he and other medioai men who formed this particular clinic undertook the duties on the distinct understanding that professional secrecy as to what happened there would be observed and upheld by the Ministry of Health. His Lordship: I am sorry, but the Ministry has no power affecting the jurisdiction of these courts. Doctors were, added the judge, subject to the orders of the court, and had to disclose what they knew. Dr Elliott said he did not deny his lordship’s ruling, but he wished to point out that he was placed in a painful position. His Lordship; Can you show me any statute which will protect you?—Witness replied that there was a regulation under the Public Health Acts. His Lordship: Yes; article 2, eub-section 2; that may be a very good regulation between yourselves, but it has nothing to do with these courts. Dr Elliott said that patients treated at the clinic were not referred to by name, but identified only, by a number, and the register was kept under lock and key. He desired to be protected against having to violate principles which the medical profession were obseiving in these matters. His Lordship: These matters do not affect the jurisdiction of the King’s courts. Some medical men undertook these duties, said the witness, simply in the interests of the public, regarding it os a public duty to try to abate a terrible disease. He therefore again asked leave to protest having to stand up publicly and violate what was one of the earliest and most sacred principles of the medical profession, and one which the profession held most dear. His Lordship: I do not see any painful position about it at all. You are bound to observe tho regulations not to disclose voluntarily the information that you obtain, but so far as giving information which you are bound to give in assisting the administration of justice is concerned, it is your duty to give it, and it is not a painful position at all. Dr Elliott: We do not undertake not to disclose voluntarily, but not to disclose at alb His Lordship: Then you have no power to do so. Witness said it was one of the things they held dearest—the confidence between doctor and patient—and he hoped his lordship would recognise their position. His Lordship; It is not an unfair obligation for doctors to assist in the administration of justice. You must give evidence.

Dr Elliott: Very well, 1 have nothing further to say. I must bow to your ruling, I presume, and give evidence.