1. Article 447 WGBO lays down the main ruling for physicians, stating that a medical practitioner does not provide information about the patient to a third party, nor does he grant access to the patient's records, unless on the grounds of a legal regulation. Professional secrecy has two components: the oath of secrecy and the privilgef of non-disclosure.
2. The scope of the oath of secrecy can be defined as 'any secret a physician is, or should be, aware of having to keep due to his position, profesison or a legal regulation. In other words, the secrets divulged to a physician. The oath of secrecy applies to any infromation a physician may gain about a patient in the course of duty. Moreover, the oath of secrecy applies to paramedical professionals and nurses, as well.
   Generally speaking, the oath of secrecy must be adhered to towards anyone except the patient himself. There is also an oath of secrecy from one physician towards another. When more than one physician is involved in the patient's treamtent, consent for exchange of information may be presumed. Exchange of information must not exceed the bounds of absolute necessity for proper treatment. Each physician is bound to the oath of secrecy concerning the information obtained. Consent for exchange of information must not be presumed when a medical examiner or a medical exmaniner for insurance purposes requests information from the physician in attendance. In such cases the patient has to consent explicitly to the information being provided, as the medical/insurance examiner is not involved in the treatment. It should be noted that the patient's consent does not automatically lead to an annulment of the oath of secrecy. It is incorrect to inform patient's relatives about his condition without his explicit consent.
3. The basis for the privilege of non-disclosure is found in Article 218, Penal Code, under which the doctor has been released, towards a judge, from his obligation o speak. The scope of the privilege of non-disclosure equals that of the oath of secrecy. The privilege of non-disclosure does not entail the right of non-appearance as a witness in a court of law. The privilege of non-disclosure is not only extended to doctors, but to nurses, dentists and midwives, as well.
4. The oath of secrecy is not absolute; first and foremost it can be lifted by law. One example is Article 2 of the Control of Contagious Diseases and Detection of Causes of Disease Act. Under this Act the doctor is obliged to inform the State Inspector of Public Health of the occurrence of certain contagious diseases. Another example is the Disposal of the Dead Act (WLB), Article 4, section 3, which states that a doctor is obliged to issue a death certificate, when he is convinced of death having been caused by natural causes.
5. The problem of informing the police should be mentioned. When a heavily injured criminal is in hospital, the doctor in attendance may not inform the police, exceptions excluded. The interests of detection are subordinated to the interests of medical care. The patient must be able to consult a doctor/the hospital without fear of arrest. The same rule applies to hospital staff. When there is a conflict of duty, the situation changes; such may be the case when a doctor knows of a patient's intention to commit a crime or when a patient has consented to the police being informed.
   Traffic accidents form a special category, concerning which the KNMG has made an arrangement with the authorities. This arrangement, in short, amounts to the attending doctor's being allowed to fill in an official form at the request of the police, provided the name of the victim of the traffic accident is supplied on it. The doctor may divulge the victim's identity to the police for the extending of care and the locating of the victim's relatives. The doctor is not allowe4' to divulge the victim's identity for detecting purposes.
6. Consent of the patient, either explicit or implicit, gives the physician the right to speak. Specifically at proceedings at which the physician appears as a witness, he may speak with the patient's consent, but he is not obliged to do so. When the information concerns a matter of therapeutic exception, a physician is allowed to appeal to his privilege of non-disclosure. In legal proceedings, consent does not annul the physician's oath of secrecy towards relatives about whom he, as a medical examiner, has acquired information.
7. The doctor has to be extremely careful with providing information to a third party, which, in principle, requires the patient's consent. In Industrial Health Care Services the doctor in attendance is only allowed to provide (with the patient's consent) objective, medical answers to pertinent questions of medical examiners or medical officers. This particularly concerns information the medical examiner in question cannot obtain himself, or information as a result of painful examinations, or information obtained by way of examinations harmful to the patient and preferably not repeated. The issuing of medical certificates has regularly been an issue at Disciplinary Measures Tribunals. The findings of the Tribunals lead to the following conclusions: fast, the person issuing a medical certificate must exercise due caution. Before issuing a certificate, he must conduct sufficient examinations of his own. Second, the certificate must be accounted for and it must not contain any statements outside the doctor's field of competence.

Top