Well, maybe not quite as confidential as you believe. Clancy reports on a state mandated violation of doctor/patient confidentiality. The public perception of doctor/patient confidence comes from TV shows and movies. It is very wrong and is worlds away from actual legal standings.
Doctor/patient confidence is a professional courtesy, not a legal requirement or legally defined right. Its legal standing is based on precedence and not legislation. Unfortunately for those who want to use it to avoid testimony there is just as much precedence going the other way.
The news item that Clancy posted about involves a law requiring that Pennsylvania doctors notify the Department of Transportation when they believe a patient has a substance abuse problem. The DOT may then revoke the patient's license based on the medical testimony. A more common example would be the laws requiring medical and scholastic personnel to report suspected child abuse.
What you end up with is a strong professional courtesy supported by tradition and some legal precedence that is being legislated away as more and more professionals are being legally forced to violate it. Be careful what you tell your doctor and do it with the understanding that even though he might not want to repeat it, if push comes to shove he'll have no choice but to do so.
Question for the lawyers in the house: How strong is the client/attorney privilege?
Any priests around? I'm also interested in the legal standing of the "seal of the confessional".
The attorney/client privilege remains quite strong, although that would vary from state to state. It is, however, limited and doesn't cover every single thing you tell your lawyer. I have just litigated this issue, and won, in a conflict situation where the law firm was representing joint clients. Let me quote from a case I have at hand:
"In New York, the attorney-client privilege is governed by CPLR § 4503, but it is also rooted in common law. CPLR § 4503:
protects from disclosure confidential communications made between the attorney ... and the client in the course of professional employment ... The party invoking the privilege must establish that the document in question reflects a communication between the attorney or his agents and the client or its agents [...], that the communication was made and retained in confidence, and that it was made principally to assist in obtaining or providing legal advice or services for the client. Since the privilege is intended to facilitate the rendition of legal representation, it does not cover communications with the attorney if intended to assist counsel in performing other services, such as the provision of business advice or the performance of such functions as negotiating purely commercial aspects of a business relationship. " Stenovich v. Wachtell, 195 Misc.2d 99, 756 N.Y.S.2d 367 (NY County 2003).
Mind you, the privilege can be waived and the privilege, which is a bar to discovery, is construed pretty closely so as to balance the discovery interests and the interests in keeping the information confidential.
Jim, if you are interested in seeing the whole case, let me know and I'll shoot you a copy. It will give you a sense of the state of the law in NY.
You're right about the doctors. The hospital I do most of my work for reports blood alcohol levels to the DMV in the event someone comes in status post motor vehicle accident and there appears to have been alcohol involved. They also report you to the DMV if you come in with a seizure. No more driving for you . . . .
(And yeah, Jim, like there's going to be any priests hanging around your site with the way you talk about 'em . . . ha!)
What? What am I saying about priests? I love priests! I only tease the ones that happen to be pederasts as well.
It shouldn't be just reserved for the Catholics though, right? I mean, I'm an ordained minister so do I get any special considerations?
Postive drug tests (and I think syphilis too) are reported on woman having babies, at least here they are.
As are Aids results. In New York state if a pregnant woman refuses the Aids test they will test the baby whether she agrees or not.