NSW Supreme Court decision on HIV case
AMA President, Dr Bill Glasson, said today that the decision by the NSW Supreme Court in favour of a woman who contracted HIV from her husband is an example of where the public interest and possible risk to another person overrides patient-doctor confidentiality.
Dr Glasson said the case highlights the need for medical practitioners to consider carefully their duty of confidentiality and to be aware of where that duty may be overriden by statutory obligations such as the Public Health Act.
The AMA Code of Ethics says:
- Patient care
- Maintain your patient's confidentiality. Exceptions to this must be taken very seriously. They may include where there is a serious risk to the patient or another person, where required by law, where part of approved research, or where there are overwhelming societal interests.
"In this particular case, the court has found that there was 'a serious risk to the patient or another person' and 'overwhelming societal interests'," Dr Glasson said.
"Doctors have a duty to consider carefully how to meet their obligation regarding confidentiality and their duty of care to others.
"The outcome of this case, where the doctor knew he was dealing with a joint pre-relationship consultation, yet did not discuss with the couple how the results were to be handled, was predictable.
"However, the decision may have other implications.
"What is the duty of a doctor seeing a patient when the doctor does not know the range of possible partners?
"How far should the doctor pursue follow-up management of treatment?
"What are 'all reasonable steps' required to protect a person from clearly foreseeable dangers?
"The decision raises questions as to the scope and content of the duty of care in different factual situations.
"On another level, the decision highlights the importance of accurate record keeping - given the dispute on the facts in this case," Dr Glasson said.
CONTACT: John Flannery (02) 6270 5477 / (0419) 494 761