CONFIDENTIALITY IN DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

Part 1 of this research paper traces the historical development of the doctor-patient relationship and its current status. Part 2 compares and discusses the differences between medical and legal duties with respect to doctor-patient and attorney-client relationships. Part 3 goes into more detail on doctor-patient and attorney-client privileges.

Over the past century, the legal protection afforded patients and others, which is centered largely around the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship, has been substantially enlarged under state common law, various state and federal statutes and the expansion of a controversial constitutional right of privacy. However, the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship is hedged about with various limitations and exceptions which are far from uniform. Today, the protection of the privacy of patient communications and other medical records does not appear to be adequate to respond to the intrusive effects of modern technology and the dilemmas they pose in balancing the rights of individuals and societal needs.

Historical Development of Doctor-Patient Confidentiality

The origins of the ethical responsibility of doctors to respect the confidentiality of medical facts they learn from their patients dates back to the oath of Hippocrates in about 400 B.C.: "What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of

. . .
Fourteenth Amendment. A constitutional right of privacy in other areas was first recognized by the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1985). That right has generally been limited to areas such as the right to practice birth control, the right to have an abortion, the right to die without assistance and the right of consenting adults to engage in certain sexual practices in private. The existence of a federal constitutional right against the invasion of privacy in other areas is the subject of controversy. In Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), the Supreme Court acknowledged such a right existed. It, however, upheld the constitutionality of the New York statute involved in that case which required doctors to report to the state the issuance of certain prescription drugs on the ground that a legitimate state interest was involved. In Nixon v. Administrator of Public Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), the Court again acknowledged a federal constitutional right against invasion of privacy but held for the government on other grounds. In a series of subsequent cases, the Supreme Court and other federal courts in cases involving claims of invasion of privacy have not applied a strict scrutiny test but rather have used balancin
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Limitations Exceptions, Doctor-Patient Confidentiality, DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP, Disability Act, Business Machs, Kovarsky Court, Superior Court, ND Ohio, Berthiaume Pratt, invasion privacy, common law, doctor-patient relationship, supreme court, civil liability, confidentiality doctor-patient relationship, confidentiality doctor-patient, medical information, constitutional privacy, duty confidentiality, testimonial privilege, bratt international business, 331 p2d 814, international business machs, duty maintain confidentiality,
Approximate Word count = 3482
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page)

More Essays on CONFIDENTIALITY IN DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP