Page 3678 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
no problem with giving the Medical Officer of Health a patient's full name and address. This would break the law or the regulation the Government has just created. As well, it would break doctor-patient confidentiality and rights to privacy.
In other words, I am just introducing legislation that will make it clear that doctors are allowed to do what Mr Berry said they can do, and that is to notify the Medical Officer of Health in cases of emergency, where the medical practitioner believes that there is a public health risk. All the conditions applicable to notification of a partner also apply in the case of notifying the Medical Officer of Health. For instance, the doctor must have very good reason to fear that the virus will be transmitted to a partner; the doctor must have reason to believe that this partner has not been told; and the doctor must give the patient the opportunity to tell the partner himself or herself.
This means waiting for a period of time specified by the doctor, but this must not be less than 21 days. If this time goes by, then the doctor has to make a choice. He or she can notify the partner, the Medical Officer of Health, or both, or indeed nobody. There is nothing coercive or mandatory about this legislation. It really leaves any decisions up to the discretion of the doctor or the Medical Officer of Health. This means that doctors who are adamant that they would never disclose the full name and address of somebody with HIV can go on doing what they choose to do. There is nothing in this legislation that says that a doctor must do anything at all. The legislation merely conveys an immunity from breach of confidence actions under certain circumstances.
I would admit that this is not a perfectly satisfactory situation. I would prefer to see a situation where the rights of partners are guaranteed. Indeed, we have a situation where the doctor must use his or her discretion, where they are weighing ethical questions in the balance. This puts a lot on the shoulders of doctors. Nevertheless, at least under this legislation they will be able to do so without fear of being taken to court for breach of confidence if they choose to act in the case of a public health emergency. I commend this legislation to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
BAIL (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 3) 1992
MR HUMPHRIES (10.45): Madam Speaker, I present the Bail (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) 1992.
Title read by Clerk.
MR HUMPHRIES: I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
This is another chapter in the ongoing saga of the ACT's evolving and emerging Bail Act. Members will recall the background of this amendment Bill from two personal explanations which were made under standing order 46 in the house yesterday, and also the Bill which Mr Connolly, the Attorney-General, introduced
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .