Page 683 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The medical man's duty ... extends to the whole of the professional relationship, including examination, diagnosis, treatment whether medical or surgical, and the need in an appropriate case to provide information to the patient.
There is a responsibility on the part of the patient. All patients should be inquisitive, determined and prepared to get beyond the medical terms that are likely to be used. Assistance is needed. This is all the more important if facing serious treatment, where a number of alternatives are available or if there is a greater degree of risk. In our increasingly litigious society doctors are sued, and patients get treatment that they believe is unsatisfactory and want to take action.
This report is a response to the need to ensure that the law is as clear as possible. Broadly, the report could have taken two paths. It could have recommended guidelines which courts could consider in determining any doctor's liability. Those guidelines would give only evidentiary status. On the other hand, the report could have provided a stronger approach through legislation. In this circumstance guidelines would provide conclusive evidence of the standard of reasonable care in respect of information given about medical procedures. This could be done through legislation.
The report has opted for the weaker of those two approaches. I disagree with that report in this very significant matter, and I urge those in the ACT, from the Attorney-General to departmental people, to consider that a very large body of opinion believes that this matter should be proceeded with through legislation. We need effective legislative protection to be introduced for patients. The current law does not detail the nature and amount of information to be provided. These requirements are simply inadequate at this time.
I do not accept the recommendation in the report that the common law standard of reasonable care, which presently applies, should be retained. The report argues that this already provides a satisfactory standard and that legislation is not necessary, but it is obviously heavily influenced by doctors rather than patient groups. The argument that it gives is questionable, in my view. Current practice is much too vague and continues to place the patient in positions of dependence on the doctor who can continue to determine what a patient needs to be told. Legislation which could be enacted would place responsibility for medical decisions on the patient rather than the doctor. Surely that is where responsibility properly lies.
The report places great emphasis on guidelines. It is true that, whichever option the report had recommended, guidelines are needed and are very important. However,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .