Physician-Patient Privilege - Revision history

Ibjadmin at 15:45, 5 December 2016

2016-12-05T15:45:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 5 December 2016
Line 8:		Line 8:
	#confidential communications		#confidential communications
	#made to a physician		#made to a physician
	#if made for the purpose of obtaining treatment or diagnosis looking towards treatment.<ref> Shuman, footnote 1. See also New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation v. Morgenthau (In the Matter of Grandy Jury Investigation in New York County), 2002 NYU int. 113, available at ~~http~~://www.law.~~cornells~~.edu/nyctap/~~IO2_0013~~.htm</ref>		#if made for the purpose of obtaining treatment or diagnosis looking towards treatment.<ref> Shuman, footnote 1. See also New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation v. Morgenthau (In the Matter of Grandy Jury Investigation in New York County), 2002 NYU int. 113, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I02_0113.htm</ref>
	The privilege belongs to the patient, not the doctor. This privilege will only cover information given to a doctor for the purposes of obtaining treatment or diagnosis and not for any other type of consultations.		The privilege belongs to the patient, not the doctor. This privilege will only cover information given to a doctor for the purposes of obtaining treatment or diagnosis and not for any other type of consultations.

IBJadmin at 15:07, 8 November 2016

2016-11-08T15:07:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 8 November 2016
Line 44:		Line 44:

	In France, the physician-patient privilege is referred to as a professional secret. Medical privilege is held by the professional rather than the patient. This privilege is absolute, meaning that it cannot be waived.<ref>Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Mosk and Ginsburg, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 50, No. 2 (Apr 2001) 345-385, 354.</ref> However, the concept of absolute privilege has only been upheld in criminal cases.<ref>Daniel W. Shuman, The Origins of Physician Patient Privilege and Professional Secret, 39 Sw. L. J. 661, Note 1(1985).</ref>The civil branch of the Cour de Cassation has permitted waiver of the professional secret when the waiver is in the patient's best interest. Furthermore, though violation of the professional secret originally required malicious intent, it now only requires intentional conduct.		In France, the physician-patient privilege is referred to as a professional secret. Medical privilege is held by the professional rather than the patient. This privilege is absolute, meaning that it cannot be waived.<ref>Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Mosk and Ginsburg, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 50, No. 2 (Apr 2001) 345-385, 354.</ref> However, the concept of absolute privilege has only been upheld in criminal cases.<ref>Daniel W. Shuman, The Origins of Physician Patient Privilege and Professional Secret, 39 Sw. L. J. 661, Note 1(1985).</ref>The civil branch of the Cour de Cassation has permitted waiver of the professional secret when the waiver is in the patient's best interest. Furthermore, though violation of the professional secret originally required malicious intent, it now only requires intentional conduct.
	Penal Code (1810), article 378- Doctors, surgeons and other health officials, including pharmacists, nurses, and all other "bailees of secrets and confidences communicated" by their status or profession, who will reveal those secrets, in all instances other than when the law compels them to disclose, will be punished with a term of no less than one month and no more than six months of imprisonent, and a fine of 100-500 francs. <Ref>French Criminal Code- available at http://~~ledroitcriminel~~.~~free~~.fr/~~la_legislation_criminelle~~/~~anciens_textes~~/~~code_penal_1810~~/~~code_penal_1810_3~~.~~htm~~</ref>		Penal Code (1810), article 378- Doctors, surgeons and other health officials, including pharmacists, nurses, and all other "bailees of secrets and confidences communicated" by their status or profession, who will reveal those secrets, in all instances other than when the law compels them to disclose, will be punished with a term of no less than one month and no more than six months of imprisonent, and a fine of 100-500 francs. <Ref>French Criminal Code- available at http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/france/penalcode/c_penalcode3b.html</ref>

	===Switzerland===		===Switzerland===

	Swiss Penal Code, article 321 covers violations of the professional secret- Doctors, dentists, nurses, and pharmacists who reveal a professional secret that was made to them in confidence will be subject to parole for three years or more or will be subject to a fine. ("Les , avocats, en justice, notaires, astreints au secret professionnel en vertu du code des obligations, , dentistes, pharmaciens, sages-femmes, ainsi que leurs auxiliaires, qui auront un secret eux en vertu de leur profession ou dont ils avaient eu connaissance dans l'exercice de celle-ci, seront, sur plainte, punis d'une peine privative de de trois ans au plus ou d'une peine .		Swiss Penal Code, article 321 covers violations of the professional secret- Doctors, dentists, nurses, and pharmacists who reveal a professional secret that was made to them in confidence will be subject to parole for three years or more or will be subject to a fine. ("Les eccl�siastiques, avocats, d�fenseurs en justice, notaires, contr�leurs astreints au secret professionnel en vertu du code des obligations, m�decins, dentistes, pharmaciens, sages-femmes, ainsi que leurs auxiliaires, qui auront r�v�l� un secret � eux confi� en vertu de leur profession ou dont ils avaient eu connaissance dans l'exercice de celle-ci, seront, sur plainte, punis d'une peine privative de libert� de trois ans au plus ou d'une peine p�cuniaire.
	Seront punis de la peine les qui auront un secret dont ils avaient eu connaissance l'occasion de leurs .		Seront punis de la m�me peine les �tudiants qui auront r�v�l� un secret dont ils avaient eu connaissance � l'occasion de leurs �tudes.
	La demeure punissable alors que le du secret n'exerce plus sa profession ou qu'il a ses .")<ref>Swiss Criminal Code- available at http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/311_0/a321.html.</ref>		La r�v�lation demeure punissable alors m�me que le d�tenteur du secret n'exerce plus sa profession ou qu'il a achev� ses �tudes.")<ref>Swiss Criminal Code- available at http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/311_0/a321.html.</ref>

	===Belgium===		===Belgium===

	Belgian Penal Code, article 458, illustrates the professional secret in a manner that emphasizes the importance of testimonial compulsion- Doctors, surgeons, health officers, pharmacists, nurses, and all other "bailees of secrets and confidences communicated" by their status or profession, who have confidentiality information that they reveal outside of court or legally compelled testimony, will be subject to imprisonment from eight days to six months and be subject to a fine. ("Les , chirurgiens, officiers de , pharmaciens, sages-femmes et toutes autres personnes , par ou par profession, des secrets qu'on leur confie, qui, hors le cas ils sont rendre en justice (ou devant une commission d'parlementaire) et celui la loi les oblige faire ces secrets, les auront , seront punis d'un emprisonnement de huit jours six mois et d'une amende de cent [euros] cinq cents [euros].") <Ref>Belgian Criminal Code- available at http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/loi/loi.htm.</ref>		Belgian Penal Code, article 458, illustrates the professional secret in a manner that emphasizes the importance of testimonial compulsion- Doctors, surgeons, health officers, pharmacists, nurses, and all other "bailees of secrets and confidences communicated" by their status or profession, who have confidentiality information that they reveal outside of court or legally compelled testimony, will be subject to imprisonment from eight days to six months and be subject to a fine. ("Les m�decins, chirurgiens, officiers de sant�, pharmaciens, sages-femmes et toutes autres personnes d�positaires, par �tat ou par profession, des secrets qu'on leur confie, qui, hors le cas o� ils sont appel�s � rendre t�moignage en justice (ou devant une commission d'enqu�te parlementaire) et celui o� la loi les oblige � faire conna�tre ces secrets, les auront r�v�l�s, seront punis d'un emprisonnement de huit jours � six mois et d'une amende de cent [euros] � cinq cents [euros].") <Ref>Belgian Criminal Code- available at http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/loi/loi.htm.</ref>

	===Australia===		===Australia===

Ibjadmin: /* South Africa */

2010-10-04T12:33:23Z

South Africa

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 4 October 2010
Line 83:		Line 83:

	----		----
			See also [[Evidence]]

	==NOTES==		==NOTES==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ibjadmin: /* NOTES */

2010-10-04T12:33:03Z

NOTES

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 4 October 2010
Line 84:		Line 84:
	----		----

	===NOTES===		==NOTES==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ibjadmin: /* South Africa */

2010-10-04T12:27:21Z

South Africa

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:27, 4 October 2010
Line 80:		Line 80:
	Like the UK, testimonial compulsion is applicable.<ref>Medical Professional secrecy with Special Reference to Venereal Diseases, Bernfeld, British Journal of Venereal Disease 43, 53 (1967).</ref> National Health Act section 14-		Like the UK, testimonial compulsion is applicable.<ref>Medical Professional secrecy with Special Reference to Venereal Diseases, Bernfeld, British Journal of Venereal Disease 43, 53 (1967).</ref> National Health Act section 14-
	#All information concerning a user, including information relating to his or her health status, treatment or stay in a health establishment, is confidential.		#All information concerning a user, including information relating to his or her health status, treatment or stay in a health establishment, is confidential.
	#Subject to section 15, no person may disclose any information contemplated in subsection (1) unless:		#Subject to section 15, no person may disclose any information contemplated in subsection (1) unless:a. The user consents to that disclosure in writing; b. A court order or any other law requires that disclosure; or c. Non-disclosure of the information represents a serious threat to public heath. <ref>Ethics roundtable debate: Is a physician-patient confidentiality relationship subservient to a greater good? Arthur Morgan, Critical Care 25 April 2005.</ref>
	a. The user consents to that disclosure in writing;
	b. A court order or any other law requires that disclosure; or
	c. Non-disclosure of the information represents a serious threat to public heath. <ref>Ethics roundtable debate: Is a physician-patient confidentiality relationship subservient to a greater good? Arthur Morgan, Critical Care 25 April 2005.</ref>

	----		----

Ibjadmin: /* South Africa */

2010-10-04T12:26:51Z

South Africa

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 4 October 2010
Line 81:		Line 81:
	#All information concerning a user, including information relating to his or her health status, treatment or stay in a health establishment, is confidential.		#All information concerning a user, including information relating to his or her health status, treatment or stay in a health establishment, is confidential.
	#Subject to section 15, no person may disclose any information contemplated in subsection (1) unless:		#Subject to section 15, no person may disclose any information contemplated in subsection (1) unless:
	a. The user consents to that disclosure in writing;		a. The user consents to that disclosure in writing;
	b. A court order or any other law requires that disclosure; or		b. A court order or any other law requires that disclosure; or
	c. Non-disclosure of the information represents a serious threat to public heath. <ref>Ethics roundtable debate: Is a physician-patient confidentiality relationship subservient to a greater good? Arthur Morgan, Critical Care 25 April 2005.</ref>		c. Non-disclosure of the information represents a serious threat to public heath. <ref>Ethics roundtable debate: Is a physician-patient confidentiality relationship subservient to a greater good? Arthur Morgan, Critical Care 25 April 2005.</ref>

	----		----

	===NOTES===		===NOTES===
	<references/>		<references/>

Ibjadmin: /* Australia */

2010-10-04T12:26:24Z

Australia

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 4 October 2010
Line 60:		Line 60:
	Medical privilege exists in 3 states: Tasmania, the Northern Territory, and Victoria. In these jurisdictions, privilege is limited to civil cases.		Medical privilege exists in 3 states: Tasmania, the Northern Territory, and Victoria. In these jurisdictions, privilege is limited to civil cases.

	''Tasmania'':		'''Tasmania''':
	"(1) A medical practitioner, without the consent of his or her patient, must not divulge in any civil proceeding any communication made to him or her in a professional capacity by the patient that was necessary to prescribe or act for the patient unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute.		"(1) A medical practitioner, without the consent of his or her patient, must not divulge in any civil proceeding any communication made to him or her in a professional capacity by the patient that was necessary to prescribe or act for the patient unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute.
	(2) A person who has possession, custody or control of any communication referred to in subsection (1) or of any record of such a communication made to a medical practitioner by a patient, without the consent of the patient, must not divulge that communication or record in any civil proceeding unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute."<ref>Tasmania Evidence Act 2001, section 127A, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/ea200180/s127a.html. </ref>		(2) A person who has possession, custody or control of any communication referred to in subsection (1) or of any record of such a communication made to a medical practitioner by a patient, without the consent of the patient, must not divulge that communication or record in any civil proceeding unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute."<ref>Tasmania Evidence Act 2001, section 127A, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/ea200180/s127a.html. </ref>

	''Victoria'': "No physician or surgeon shall without the consent of his patient divulge in any civil suit action or proceedings (unless the sanity or the testamentary capacity of the patient is the matter in dispute) any information which he has acquired in attending the patient and which was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient." <ref>Victoria Evidence Act 1958, section 28, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/epa1958361/s28.html. </ref>		'''Victoria''': "No physician or surgeon shall without the consent of his patient divulge in any civil suit action or proceedings (unless the sanity or the testamentary capacity of the patient is the matter in dispute) any information which he has acquired in attending the patient and which was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient." <ref>Victoria Evidence Act 1958, section 28, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/epa1958361/s28.html. </ref>

	''Northern Territory'': "A medical practitioner shall not, without the consent of his patient, divulge in any civil proceeding (unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute) any communication made to him in his professional character by the patient, and necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient." <Ref>Northern Territory Evidence Act, section 12, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/ea80/s12.html.</ref>		'''Northern Territory''': "A medical practitioner shall not, without the consent of his patient, divulge in any civil proceeding (unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute) any communication made to him in his professional character by the patient, and necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient." <Ref>Northern Territory Evidence Act, section 12, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/ea80/s12.html.</ref>

	===New Zealand===		===New Zealand===

Ibjadmin: /* United Kingdom */

2010-10-04T12:25:52Z

United Kingdom

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 4 October 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:

	The UK has a system of testimonial compulsion- meaning that a physician, though bound by ethics to keep a patient's confidentiality, must disclose such information to a court if ordered to do so. In the first case to address the physician patient privilege, Duchess of Kingston's Case, the House of Lords asserted:		The UK has a system of testimonial compulsion- meaning that a physician, though bound by ethics to keep a patient's confidentiality, must disclose such information to a court if ordered to do so. In the first case to address the physician patient privilege, Duchess of Kingston's Case, the House of Lords asserted:
	<blockquote>If a surgeon was voluntarily to reveal these secrets, to be sure he would be guilty of a breach of honour and of great indiscretion; but, to give that information in a court of justice, which by the law of the land he is bound to do, will never be imputed to him as any indiscretion whatever.<ref>Rex v. Duchess of Kingston, 20 How. St. Tr. 355, 572-572 (1776).</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>''If a surgeon was voluntarily to reveal these secrets, to be sure he would be guilty of a breach of honour and of great indiscretion; but, to give that information in a court of justice, which by the law of the land he is bound to do, will never be imputed to him as any indiscretion whatever.''<ref>Rex v. Duchess of Kingston, 20 How. St. Tr. 355, 572-572 (1776).</ref></blockquote>
	Thus, there is not statutory physician-patient privilege in British civil or criminal law.<ref>Law Reform Committee (London) Privilege in Civil Proceedings 20-22 (Sixteenth Report 1967).</ref> The judge, however, does have the right to allow physicians to refuse disclosure of information that may result in a breach of an ethical duty and the information is not crucial to the case at hand.<ref>Daniel W. Shuman, The Origins of Physician Patient Privilege and Professional Secret, 39 Sw. L. J. 661 (1985).</ref> Like in the United States, in the British and Commonwealth jurisdictions, the privilege belongs to the patient, not the physician.		Thus, there is not statutory physician-patient privilege in British civil or criminal law.<ref>Law Reform Committee (London) Privilege in Civil Proceedings 20-22 (Sixteenth Report 1967).</ref> The judge, however, does have the right to allow physicians to refuse disclosure of information that may result in a breach of an ethical duty and the information is not crucial to the case at hand.<ref>Daniel W. Shuman, The Origins of Physician Patient Privilege and Professional Secret, 39 Sw. L. J. 661 (1985).</ref> Like in the United States, in the British and Commonwealth jurisdictions, the privilege belongs to the patient, not the physician.

	===European Court of Justice===		===European Court of Justice===

Ibjadmin: /* France */

2010-10-04T12:25:18Z

France

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 4 October 2010
Line 43:		Line 43:
	===France===		===France===

	In France, the physician-patient privilege is referred to as a professional secret. Medical privilege is held by the professional rather than the patient. This privilege is absolute, meaning that it cannot be waived.<ref>Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Mosk and Ginsburg, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 50, No. 2 (Apr 2001) 345-385, 354.</ref> However, the concept of absolute privilege has only been upheld in criminal cases.<ref>~~French Criminal Code- available at http://ledroitcriminel~~.~~free~~.~~fr/la_legislation_criminelle/anciens_textes/code_penal_1810/code_penal_1810_3~~.~~htm~~</ref> The civil branch of the Cour de Cassation has permitted waiver of the professional secret when the waiver is in the patient's best interest. Furthermore, though violation of the professional secret originally required malicious intent, it now only requires intentional conduct.		In France, the physician-patient privilege is referred to as a professional secret. Medical privilege is held by the professional rather than the patient. This privilege is absolute, meaning that it cannot be waived.<ref>Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Mosk and Ginsburg, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 50, No. 2 (Apr 2001) 345-385, 354.</ref> However, the concept of absolute privilege has only been upheld in criminal cases.<ref>Daniel W. Shuman, The Origins of Physician Patient Privilege and Professional Secret, 39 Sw. L. J. 661, Note 1(1985).</ref>The civil branch of the Cour de Cassation has permitted waiver of the professional secret when the waiver is in the patient's best interest. Furthermore, though violation of the professional secret originally required malicious intent, it now only requires intentional conduct.
			<Ref>French Criminal Code- available at http://ledroitcriminel.free.fr/la_legislation_criminelle/anciens_textes/code_penal_1810/code_penal_1810_3.htm</ref>

	===Switzerland===		===Switzerland===

Ibjadmin at 12:23, 4 October 2010

2010-10-04T12:23:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 4 October 2010
Line 43:		Line 43:
	===France===		===France===

	In France, the physician-patient privilege is referred to as a professional secret. Medical privilege is held by the professional rather than the patient. This privilege is absolute, meaning that it cannot be waived. However, the concept of absolute privilege has only been upheld in criminal cases. The civil branch of the Cour de Cassation has permitted waiver of the professional secret when the waiver is in the patient's best interest. Furthermore, though violation of the professional secret originally required malicious intent, it now only requires intentional conduct.		In France, the physician-patient privilege is referred to as a professional secret. Medical privilege is held by the professional rather than the patient. This privilege is absolute, meaning that it cannot be waived.<ref>Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Mosk and Ginsburg, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 50, No. 2 (Apr 2001) 345-385, 354.</ref> However, the concept of absolute privilege has only been upheld in criminal cases.<ref>French Criminal Code- available at http://ledroitcriminel.free.fr/la_legislation_criminelle/anciens_textes/code_penal_1810/code_penal_1810_3.htm</ref> The civil branch of the Cour de Cassation has permitted waiver of the professional secret when the waiver is in the patient's best interest. Furthermore, though violation of the professional secret originally required malicious intent, it now only requires intentional conduct.
	Penal Code (1810), article 378- Doctors, surgeons and other health officials, including pharmacists, nurses, and all other "bailees of secrets and confidences communicated" by their status or profession, who will reveal those secrets, in all instances other than when the law compels them to disclose, will be punished with a term of no less than one month and no more than six months of imprisonent, and a fine of 100-500 francs. ("Les m�decins, chirurgiens et autres officiers de sant�, ainsi que les pharmaciens, les sages-femmes, et toutes autres personnes d�positaires, par �tat ou profession, des secrets qu'on leur confie, qui, hors le cas o� la loi les oblige � se porter d�nonciateurs, auront r�v�l� ces secrets, seront punis d'un emprisonnement d'un mois � six mois, et d'une amende de cent francs � cinq cents francs.")		Penal Code (1810), article 378- Doctors, surgeons and other health officials, including pharmacists, nurses, and all other "bailees of secrets and confidences communicated" by their status or profession, who will reveal those secrets, in all instances other than when the law compels them to disclose, will be punished with a term of no less than one month and no more than six months of imprisonent, and a fine of 100-500 francs. ("Les m�decins, chirurgiens et autres officiers de sant�, ainsi que les pharmaciens, les sages-femmes, et toutes autres personnes d�positaires, par �tat ou profession, des secrets qu'on leur confie, qui, hors le cas o� la loi les oblige � se porter d�nonciateurs, auront r�v�l� ces secrets, seront punis d'un emprisonnement d'un mois � six mois, et d'une amende de cent francs � cinq cents francs.")

Line 50:		Line 50:
	Swiss Penal Code, article 321 covers violations of the professional secret- Doctors, dentists, nurses, and pharmacists who reveal a professional secret that was made to them in confidence will be subject to parole for three years or more or will be subject to a fine. ("Les eccl�siastiques, avocats, d�fenseurs en justice, notaires, contr�leurs astreints au secret professionnel en vertu du code des obligations, m�decins, dentistes, pharmaciens, sages-femmes, ainsi que leurs auxiliaires, qui auront r�v�l� un secret � eux confi� en vertu de leur profession ou dont ils avaient eu connaissance dans l'exercice de celle-ci, seront, sur plainte, punis d'une peine privative de libert� de trois ans au plus ou d'une peine p�cuniaire.		Swiss Penal Code, article 321 covers violations of the professional secret- Doctors, dentists, nurses, and pharmacists who reveal a professional secret that was made to them in confidence will be subject to parole for three years or more or will be subject to a fine. ("Les eccl�siastiques, avocats, d�fenseurs en justice, notaires, contr�leurs astreints au secret professionnel en vertu du code des obligations, m�decins, dentistes, pharmaciens, sages-femmes, ainsi que leurs auxiliaires, qui auront r�v�l� un secret � eux confi� en vertu de leur profession ou dont ils avaient eu connaissance dans l'exercice de celle-ci, seront, sur plainte, punis d'une peine privative de libert� de trois ans au plus ou d'une peine p�cuniaire.
	Seront punis de la m�me peine les �tudiants qui auront r�v�l� un secret dont ils avaient eu connaissance � l'occasion de leurs �tudes.		Seront punis de la m�me peine les �tudiants qui auront r�v�l� un secret dont ils avaient eu connaissance � l'occasion de leurs �tudes.
			<ref>Swiss Criminal Code- available at http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/311_0/a321.html.</ref>

	===Belgium===		===Belgium===

			<Ref>Belgian Criminal Code- available at http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/loi/loi.htm.</ref>

	===Australia===		===Australia===
Line 62:		Line 62:
	''Tasmania'':		''Tasmania'':
	"(1) A medical practitioner, without the consent of his or her patient, must not divulge in any civil proceeding any communication made to him or her in a professional capacity by the patient that was necessary to prescribe or act for the patient unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute.		"(1) A medical practitioner, without the consent of his or her patient, must not divulge in any civil proceeding any communication made to him or her in a professional capacity by the patient that was necessary to prescribe or act for the patient unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute.
	(2) A person who has possession, custody or control of any communication referred to in subsection (1) or of any record of such a communication made to a medical practitioner by a patient, without the consent of the patient, must not divulge that communication or record in any civil proceeding unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute."		(2) A person who has possession, custody or control of any communication referred to in subsection (1) or of any record of such a communication made to a medical practitioner by a patient, without the consent of the patient, must not divulge that communication or record in any civil proceeding unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute."<ref>Tasmania Evidence Act 2001, section 127A, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/ea200180/s127a.html. </ref>

	''Victoria'': "No physician or surgeon shall without the consent of his patient divulge in any civil suit action or proceedings (unless the sanity or the testamentary capacity of the patient is the matter in dispute) any information which he has acquired in attending the patient and which was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient."		''Victoria'': "No physician or surgeon shall without the consent of his patient divulge in any civil suit action or proceedings (unless the sanity or the testamentary capacity of the patient is the matter in dispute) any information which he has acquired in attending the patient and which was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient." <ref>Victoria Evidence Act 1958, section 28, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/epa1958361/s28.html. </ref>

	''Northern Territory'': "A medical practitioner shall not, without the consent of his patient, divulge in any civil proceeding (unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute) any communication made to him in his professional character by the patient, and necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient."		''Northern Territory'': "A medical practitioner shall not, without the consent of his patient, divulge in any civil proceeding (unless the sanity of the patient is the matter in dispute) any communication made to him in his professional character by the patient, and necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient." <Ref>Northern Territory Evidence Act, section 12, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/ea80/s12.html.</ref>

	===New Zealand===		===New Zealand===

	Though the physician-patient privilege started out as applying only to civil cases, in 1980, New Zealand extended it to criminal proceedings as well. In order to qualify as privileged in criminal cases, the communication needs to meet the requirements for privilege in civil cases, and also show that the purpose of the communication was to enable the doctor to examine, treat or act for the patient for (a) drug dependency or (b) any other condition or behavior that manifests itself in criminal conduct. The Evidence Act of 2006 reaffirms this notion.		Though the physician-patient privilege started out as applying only to civil cases, in 1980, New Zealand extended it to criminal proceedings as well. In order to qualify as privileged in criminal cases, the communication needs to meet the requirements for privilege in civil cases, and also show that the purpose of the communication was to enable the doctor to examine, treat or act for the patient for (a) drug dependency or (b) any other condition or behavior that manifests itself in criminal conduct. The Evidence Act of 2006 reaffirms this notion.<ref>New Zealand Evidence Act 2006 No 69, Part 2, Subpart 8 (59)(2), available at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393667.html.</ref>

	===Canada===		===Canada===

	Quebec: The Quebecois statute provides that "No physician may be compelled to declare what has been revealed to him in his professional character."		Quebec: The Quebecois statute provides that "No physician may be compelled to declare what has been revealed to him in his professional character." <ref>Quebec Rev. Stat. (1941).</ref>

	===South Africa===		===South Africa===

	Like the UK, testimonial compulsion is applicable. National Health Act section 14-		Like the UK, testimonial compulsion is applicable.<ref>Medical Professional secrecy with Special Reference to Venereal Diseases, Bernfeld, British Journal of Venereal Disease 43, 53 (1967).</ref> National Health Act section 14-
	#All information concerning a user, including information relating to his or her health status, treatment or stay in a health establishment, is confidential.		#All information concerning a user, including information relating to his or her health status, treatment or stay in a health establishment, is confidential.
	#Subject to section 15, no person may disclose any information contemplated in subsection (1) unless:		#Subject to section 15, no person may disclose any information contemplated in subsection (1) unless:
	a. The user consents to that disclosure in writing;		a. The user consents to that disclosure in writing;
	b. A court order or any other law requires that disclosure; or		b. A court order or any other law requires that disclosure; or
	c. Non-disclosure of the information represents a serious threat to public heath		c. Non-disclosure of the information represents a serious threat to public heath. <ref>Ethics roundtable debate: Is a physician-patient confidentiality relationship subservient to a greater good? Arthur Morgan, Critical Care 25 April 2005.</ref>

	----		----
	===NOTES===		===NOTES===
	<references/>		<references/>


	~~6. Miss M. v. Commission, Case 155/78, E. Comm. Ct. J. Rep. 1797 (1980).~~

	~~7. Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Mosk and Ginsburg, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 50, No. 2 (Apr 2001) 345-385, 354.~~

	~~8. French Criminal Code- available at http://ledroitcriminel.free.fr/la_legislation_criminelle/anciens_textes/code_penal_1810/code_penal_1810_3.htm~~

	~~9. Swiss Criminal Code- available at http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/311_0/a321.html.~~

	~~10. Belgian Criminal Code- available at http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/loi/loi.htm.~~

	~~11. Tasmania Evidence Act 2001, section 127A, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/ea200180/s127a.html.~~

	~~12. Victoria Evidence Act 1958, section 28, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/epa1958361/s28.html.~~

	~~13. Northern Territory Evidence Act, section 12, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/ea80/s12.html.~~

	~~14. New Zealand Evidence Act 2006 No 69, Part 2, Subpart 8 (59)(2), available at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393667.html.~~

	~~15. Quebec Rev. Stat. (1941).~~

	~~16. Medical Professional secrecy with Special Reference to Venereal Diseases, Bernfeld, British Journal of Venereal Disease 43, 53 (1967).~~

	~~17. Ethics roundtable debate: Is a physician-patient confidentiality relationship subservient to a greater good? Arthur Morgan, Critical Care 25 April 2005.~~