Physician–patient privilege
This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2013) |
Evidence |
---|
Part of the law series |
Types of evidence |
Relevance |
Authentication |
Witnesses |
Hearsay and exceptions |
Other common law areas |
|
Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to
Scope
The privilege may cover the situation where a patient confesses to a psychiatrist that they committed a particular crime. It may also cover normal inquiries regarding matters such as injuries that may result in civil action. For example, any defendant that the patient may be suing at the time cannot ask the doctor if the patient ever expressed the belief that their condition had improved. However, the rule generally does not apply to confidences shared with physicians when they are not serving in the role of medical providers.
The reasoning behind the rule is that a level of trust must exist in the doctor–patient relationship so that the physician can properly treat the patient. If the patient were fearful of telling the truth to the physician because they believed the physician would report such behavior to the authorities, the treatment process could be rendered far more difficult, or the physician could make an incorrect diagnosis.
For example, a below-
The law in
The law in New Hampshire places physician–patient communications on the same basis as
United States
In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor–patient privilege.
At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction. For example, in Texas there is only a limited physician–patient privilege in criminal proceedings, and the privilege is limited in civil cases as well.[4]
Australia
In
In some jurisdictions in Australia privilege may also extend to
See also
- Privilege (evidence)
- Attorney–client privilege
- Doctor–patient relationship
- Medical privacy
- Priest–penitent privilege
- Subpoena duces tecum
- Subpoena ad testificandum
References
- ^ American / English Encyclopedia of the Law Page 611, Paragraph 27, 8th Edition
- ^ Transportation, Government of Ontario, Ministry of. "Medical Review - Physicians' Reporting Requirements". www.mto.gov.on.ca. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Section 329:26 Confidential Communications". www.gencourt.state.nh.us. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
- ^ Texas Occupations Code section 159.003 and Texas Rules of Evidence, Rule 509(b)
- ^ "Privileges protecting other confidential communications". Australian Law Reform Commission. 17 August 2010. Retrieved 2020-06-17.
- ^ NSW Evidence Act 1995 s117.
- ^ NSW Evidence Act 1995.
- ^ Evidence Act 1995 No 25 s126K.
- ^ NSW Evidence Act 1995 s127.
- ^ Evidence Act 1995 s129.
- ^ NSW Evidence Act 1995 s131.
- ^ "NSW Evidence Act 1995 section 126A". Retrieved 3 May 2018.