Rapid Responses to:

NEWS EXTRA: Christopher Zinn Wife wins case against GPs who did not disclose husband’s HIV status BMJ 2003; 326: 1286-h [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Tort Law in NSW, Australia

David J Brookman   (2 July 2003)

Judge's "inference" unlikely to be valid

Matthew L. Grove   (2 July 2003)

Clear guidelines needed

David J. Farrar   (15 July 2003)

Tort Law in NSW, Australia 2 July 2003
David J Brookman, Senior Lecturer University of Newcastle Send response to journal: Re: Tort Law in NSW, Australia	This article flags the depths to which tort law has sunk in NSW. Under the Public Health Act 1991, Section 17 it is a criminal offence for a person to disclose the HIV status of a person to a third party unless it is so legislated. So it may disclosed without consent to a carer/ health worker, to a court - or under the other provisions of the public health but not to any person who might be at risk. Hence the finding of the court that the poor GPs concerned were negligent for failing to break the law is novel. The costs of this action, which will hopefully be appealed will add to the burden of medical defence ( and hence all health care costs) - roll on no fault insurance then at least people can be compensated without ridiculous decisions such as this. Competing interests:   None declared
Judge's "inference" unlikely to be valid 2 July 2003
Matthew L. Grove, Consultant Rheumatologist NTGH, NE29 8NH Send response to journal: Re: Judge's "inference" unlikely to be valid	Whilst I'd agree that the ideal way for the GPs to have proceeded in this case would have been to inform both parties at the same time (and avoid this whole mess), I have to take issue with at least one of the Judge's statements in your article. Justice Cripps said ..."Had FH been asked whether he proposed to tell his future wife of his condition and been reminded at that time if he had sexual intercourse with her without telling her of it he was committing an offence he would, I infer, have said he would tell her," But it is clear from a statement later in the article that FH was entirely aware of the consequences of his seropositivity: "[FH] forged documents to show his wife that he had a negative and not positive result." Surely it is obvious he deliberately lied to his wife? The inference that correct counselling would have persuaded him to do otherwise seems specious. Competing interests:   None declared
Clear guidelines needed 15 July 2003
David J. Farrar, Staff Physician Harvard University Send response to journal: Re: Clear guidelines needed	Although we can sympathise with the woman (PD) and agree that she needs financial compensation and we can also agree that the GP's should have informed both individuals at a shared follow-up appointment, I believe the doctors' professional behaviour is defensible. The law is at best unclear and contradictory. If they had informed PD directly without the man's consent, they may have been sued for breaching confidentiality. The man (FH) was criminally negligent in not informing his wife of his HIV status. In his abscence, finding someone else to blame becomes a necessity under the legal system. In this case, it is easier and perhaps more profitable to take court action against the doctors (and presumably their malpractice insurer) than against FH. This case will only drive up medical defence premiums and encourage lawyers. When a couple attends for HIV testing, the patients should voluntarily limit their right to confidentiality (for this specific test, at this time, with this person only) and give formal consent for the GP to release the results to both parties. Competing interests:   None declared