Difference between revisions of "Physician-Patient Privilege"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 21: Line 21:
 
== Psychotherapist Patient Privilege ==
 
== Psychotherapist Patient Privilege ==
  
A physician may include a psychiatrist. The psychotherapist-patient privilege is more widely accepted than physician patient privilege as all but one of the states recognize some form of psychotherapist-patient privilege.<ref>Doe v. Diamond, 964 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1992)</ref>  The rational behind this privilege is that promising confidence to a psychotherapy patient gives them an incentive to consult and trust the therapists. This is particularly important as individuals who do not receive mental treatment may commit crimes without such therapy. The same exceptions apply to this privilege as to the physician patient privilege. In addition, some courts allow the victim of violence by the patient to sue the patient's therapist if the patient communicated to the therapist an intent to harm the victim and the therapist unreasonably failed to do so.  
+
A physician may include a psychiatrist. The psychotherapist-patient privilege is more widely accepted than physician patient privilege as all but one of the states recognize some form of psychotherapist-patient privilege.<ref>Doe v. Diamond, 964 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1992)</ref>  The rational behind this privilege is that promising confidence to a psychotherapy patient gives them an incentive to consult and trust the therapists. This is particularly important as individuals who do not receive mental treatment may commit crimes without such therapy. The same exceptions apply to this privilege as to the physician patient privilege. In addition, some courts allow the victim of violence by the patient to sue the patient's therapist if the patient communicated to the therapist an intent to harm the victim and the therapist unreasonably failed to do so.<ref>Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal 1976).</ref>
  
 
== Medical Confidentiality ==
 
== Medical Confidentiality ==
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:
"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."
+
<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.  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. 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===
Line 88: Line 88:
 
===NOTES===
 
===NOTES===
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
1. Daniel W. Shuman, The Origins of Physician Patient Privilege and Professional Secret, 39 Sw. L. J. 661 (1985).
 
  
2. Doe v. Diamond, 964 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1992).
 
 
3. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal 1976).
 
 
4. Rex v. Duchess of Kingston, 20 How. St. Tr. 355, 572-572 (1776).
 
 
5. Law Reform Committee (London) Privilege in Civil Proceedings 20-22 (Sixteenth Report 1967).
 
  
 
6. Miss M. v. Commission, Case 155/78, E. Comm. Ct. J. Rep. 1797 (1980).
 
6. Miss M. v. Commission, Case 155/78, E. Comm. Ct. J. Rep. 1797 (1980).

Revision as of 13:17, 4 October 2010