Professional Documents
Culture Documents
X vs. Y
X vs. Y
HOSPITAL Z
FACTS:-
Appellant Arguments:-
Respondent Arguments:-
Every Right has a co- relative Duty and every Duty has a co-relative
Right. But the rule is not absolute. It is subject to certain
exceptions.
Hippocratic Oath is not enforceable and the Code of Professional
Conduct made by the Medical Council of contains an exception
that the information may be disclosed in a court of law under the
orders of the Presiding Judge.
Parallel is drawn with English law which provides that the
exceptions permit: disclosure with the consent, or in the best
interests, of the patient, in compliance with a court order or other
legally enforceable duty and, in very limited circumstances, where
the public interest so requires
Public interest, would override the duty of confidentiality,
particularly where there, is an immediate or future health risk to
others. The proposed marriage carried with it the health risk to an
identifiable person who had to be protected from being infected
with the communicable disease from which the appellant
suffered, The right to confidentiality is not enforceable in the
present situation.
. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right which
defines this right as follows,:
(1) “Every one has the. right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law
and is necessary in democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well being of the country,
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.”
The judgment holds good as far as the disclosure by the doctor and the
right of fianceé to know are concerned.
The court upheld the decision on these two matters and disregarded
the Judge’s decision on everything else.