The recognised requirement for informed consent to treatment has also had a direct bearing on this new era of cooperation. [33] PIAC's report, Whose Health Records, refers to court decisions over the past ten years in Australia which have made the medical professions `more accountable and led to greater recognition of consumer rights'. PIAC cites the High Court's judgment in 1992 in Rogers v Whitaker for a doctor's obligation to `provide a consumer with sufficient information to allow them to give informed consent to treatment'. [34] Such landmark decisions have in many ways changed the doctor-patient relationship, although provision of access to medical records in private general and specialist medical practice has remained legally unresolved.
Members of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) responded to this issue in a recent survey conducted by the RACGP. Their survey canvassed a range of issues including patient access to medical records. 76 per cent of respondents indicated that they agreed that legislation which presently does not allow patients to have access to their medical records should not be changed.
Medical practitioners therefore may state the principle that access to medical records and privacy of medical records is one simply of communication, education and cooperation. In practice, fears of possible litigation as well as strongly-held views on medical records being the sole property of the medical practitioner, often prevents patients gaining automatic access to their records.
The final report of the Professional Indemnity Review (PIR) also noted that doctors feared litigation. PIR pointed to doctors' fears that patients might `lose confidence in the health care system and the advice of health care professionals' if patients were more aware of the `unknowns and risks' which might be revealed in medical and health records. [43]
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/1996-99/medical/report/c02.htm
