Beran R G
Epilepsy Res. 1997 Mar;26(3):415-21. doi: 10.1016/s0920-1211(96)01008-x.
Privacy and professional privilege between doctor and patient were reviewed at the 21st International Epilepsy Congress and at the First Academic Seminar of the Australian College of Legal Medicine (ACLM). A survey was conducted at the ACLM to review the attitudes of a group of doctors who were also trained within the law, regarding professional privilege in general and the responsibilities and liabilities of doctors when dealing with non-compliant patients who have uncontrolled epilepsy and continue to drive motor vehicles. Most responders (17/19) felt that there should be professional privilege between doctor and patient, although only one respondent felt that such privilege should be absolute. Fourteen out of 19 respondents felt that doctors had a duty to report those patients who posed a risk, with 4/19 denying such duty and one respondent being undecided. Inconsistencies emerged when all respondents felt that a doctor should report a non-compliant, dangerous patient, as presented within the scenario and 4/19 of respondents attributed legal liability to the doctor for loss of income by the family of the victim of a traffic accident, resultant from failure to disclose. The study concluded that it was safer for the doctor to report patients seen as posing a foreseeable risk, unless such reporting contravened legislative restriction as may exist in such jurisdictions as in France.
在第21届国际癫痫大会以及澳大利亚法医学学院（ACLM）的首届学术研讨会上，对医患之间的隐私和职业特权进行了审议。在ACLM开展了一项调查，以了解一群同时接受过法律培训的医生对一般职业特权以及医生在处理癫痫未得到控制且仍继续驾驶机动车的不依从患者时的责任和义务的态度。大多数受访者（17/19）认为医患之间应该存在职业特权，不过只有一位受访者认为这种特权应该是绝对的。19名受访者中有14人认为医生有责任报告那些构成风险的患者，19人中有4人否认有此责任，还有一位受访者未作决定。当所有受访者都认为医生应该按照案例中所呈现的那样报告不依从、危险的患者时，不一致的情况出现了，19名受访者中有4人将交通事故受害者家属因未披露信息而导致的收入损失的法律责任归咎于医生。该研究得出结论，对医生来说，报告被视为构成可预见风险的患者更为稳妥，除非这种报告违反了法国等司法管辖区可能存在的立法限制。
