At 08:01 10/08/96 +0100, you wrote:
>>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>> If a patient asks for an item of information to be erased from their
>> records, what happens if they later come back to claim injury has occurred
>> because that informatin would have been critical in avoiding an error in
>> managing them?
>>
>
>
>I may be wrong (and have not looked up the Access to Health records Act
>which provides this right) but I thought the patient could only require
>deletion of something that was incorrect or irrelevant to treatment. If
>so, then you beg the whole question.
>
>I would say no defence to negligence claim if the relevance of the
>information as an aid to diagnosis or treatment in the future ought to
>have been apparent at the outset. The doctor should have refused to
>delete, explaining why, and forced the patient into the next step under
>the Act or to drop the request.
>
>Graham
>
In this geographical area solicitors have taken a lead in setting up a
"medico-legal society". I don't regularly do anything beyond basic reports
and haven't been able to attend yet, but I think some attempt to build
bridges, reduce acrimony and distrust, and help patients is worth supporting.
Lawyers can be part of every doctor's worst nightmare - and I suspect most
of us often feel "there but for the grace of God". I hope lawyers
understand this. On the other hand the MDU/MPS etc lawyers do a pretty fair
job for us as a profession most of the time.
I personally have had to spend more time sorting out inappropriate
criticisms aimed either at me or colleagues by junior doctors (who no-one
would consider banning from this list), than sorting out lawyer problems.
In his last postings Graham has made many points - two stand out for me.
One is that I have been amazed at the thread on deliberately leaving
information out of notes at patients' request. Notes are imperfect enough
through time pressure, human fallibility, etc. but conspiring with patients
to knowingly omit something that is clinically "noteworthy" simply because
of patient preference suggests that we lack confidence in our own systems of
confidentiality - have I misunderstood?
The second point that stood out related to the law suits on pertussis. As I
understand the science there is really no evidence now that pertussis
vaccine caused any brain damage. Some people with disabled children were
lucky enough to get money, when others with children just as disabled
haven't. I don't think this is anything lawyers, or the doctors who
supported them, can be too proud of. The sooner we have a system of care
for the disabled and no fault compensation that separates doctor (or
government or pharmaceutical company) bashing from providing financial
support for injured or diasabled people the better.
Finally rumour has it that while doctors can be sued for what they do or do
not do in the heat of battle - whether consultation or operation, lawyers
and judges cannot be sued for what they do or do not do in court. Is this
really true - and if it is how can any lawyer or judge face any other
professional with a clear conscience? Surely a lawyer's clients are just as
much worthy of protection as a doctor's patients???
Perhaps the presence of a lawyer here, someone who is not personally known
to us, will help us to hear both sides of the story in an atmosphere that
seems relatively conducive to "straight talking".
Julian Bradley
GP etc.
Julian Bradley
GP etc.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|