A patient complained to me that a doctor he had visited had disclosed information about him to the Police. The patient had been attending a hospital clinic for a number of years. He had a complex medical history and had recently expressed suicidal thoughts.

The patient failed to attend a clinic appointment and left a message explaining that he had been delayed because he had been purchasing a gun. The doctor rang the patient and told him that he would only be able to continue to receive treatment at the clinic if he got rid of the gun. The patient decided to withdraw from treatment and keep the gun.

The doctor consulted several colleagues involved in the man's care and treatment. All agreed that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for the doctor to contact the Police. The doctor rang the Police the same day and asked them to visit the man.

Health Information Privacy Code

The complaint raised issues under Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 11. Rule 11 allows a disclosure by a health agency in certain circumstances where it is either not desirable or not practicable to obtain an authorisation from the individual concerned. I accepted that it was not practicable for the doctor to safely obtain authorisation from the patient to disclose to the Police. If the doctor had alerted the patient to his intention to tell the Police, it might have precipitated the action the doctor feared.

Exceptions under rule 11(2)

Rule 11(2)(d)(ii) allows information to be disclosed if it is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of an individual. In order to assess whether the disclosure fell within this exception, I had to be satisfied that the doctor had reasonable grounds to believe that the complainant posed a serious and imminent threat to himself or to his immediate family. I also had to be satisfied that the doctor had reasonable grounds for believing that the disclosure was necessary to prevent that threat. I was satisfied that the doctor was basing his view on reasonable grounds because of his knowledge of the complainant's mental and physical health and his recent suicidal comments.

Any disclosure made in reliance upon this exception to rule 11 must be made to a person or agency that is able to do something about the threat. (See also Duncan v Medical Disciplinary Committee ¹⁹⁸⁶ 1 NZLR 513 on this point). In this instance, the police were the appropriate agency to respond to a potential threat involving a firearm.

Rule 11(3)

Rule 11(3) requires that the disclosure of information be only to the extent necessary to prevent or lessen the threat. In this case, when notifying the police, the doctor had disclosed only the complainant's contact details, a brief overview of recent events and an indication of his relevant medical condition. I was satisfied that the requirement of rule 11(3) was met.

I formed the opinion that the doctor was justified in disclosing information about the patient to the police under rule 11(2)(d)(ii) and therefore had not caused an interference with the privacy of the complainant.

Indexing terms: Disclosure of personal information - Medical practitioner - Possession of gun disclosed to Police - 'Disclosure ... necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to ... the life or health of the individual concerned or another individual' - Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rules 11(2)(d)(ii), 11(3).

June 2001