HealthConnect and the duty of care: a dilemma for medical practitioners

This article asks whether medical practitioners' duty of care to their patients will encompass participation in the HealthConnect shared electronic records initiative. Medico-legal aspects of the HeathConnect scheme relating to the nature of shared electronic health record summaries (SEHRS) are examined, focusing on their function as an element of patient care and their ultimate purpose. The analysis is based on the premise that an incomplete and hence inaccurate shared electronic health record summary is clinically and legally more perilous than no record at all.     

Euthanasia: why it doesn't matter (much) what the doctor thinks and why there is no suggestion that doctors should have a duty to kill

A major reason that The Netherlands has taken a different approach to the rest of the world on such a fundamental moral issue is that the courts and legislature in that country have accorded the interests of doctors a cardinal role in the euthanasia debate. This article argues that the interests of doctors are of only incidental and peripheral relevance in relation to the moral status of euthanasia. The moral status of euthanasia has little to do with the preparedness of doctors to administer the lethal injection or their general attitude towards the practice. Euthanasia is principally about the interests of the patient and the impact that the practice may have on the community in general, not preserving the conscience or improving the working life of doctors.     

Access to medical care for HIV-infected individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act: a duty to treat.

In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This Note examines the legislative history of the ADA and uncovers Congress's intent to impose a duty on health care providers to treat people with disabilities unless an individual poses a "direct threat" to the health or safety of others. This Note posits that, with the passage of the ADA, Congress imposed a statutory duty on health care providers to give care to people infected with HIV who qualify under the statute. This Note concludes that while the "direct threat" exception may lessen the impact of the ADA, those infected with HIV should enjoy greater access to health care than ever before.     

Fiduciary disclosure of medical mistakes: the duty to promptly notify patients of adverse health care events

Fiduciary obligations are imposed by the common law to ensure that a person occupying a societal role with a high potential for the manipulation of vulnerable persons exercises utmost good faith. Australian law has recognised that the doctor-patient relationship, while not wholly fiduciary, has fiduciary aspects. Amongst such duties are those prohibiting sexual or financial abuse of patients or disclosure without express authority of confidential information. One important consequence of attaching such fiduciary duties to the doctor-patient relationship is that the onus of proof falls not upon the vulnerable party (the patient), but upon the doctor (to disprove the allegation). Another is that consent cannot be pleaded as an absolute defence. In this article the authors advocate that the law should now accept that the fiduciary obligations of the doctor-patient relationship extend to creating a legal duty that any adverse health care event be promptly reported to the patient involved. The reasons for creating such a presumption, as well as its elements and exceptions, are explained.