Inviolability of the health care institution

Protecting the patient's privacy and history

Authors

  • Gabriel Adriasola Federación Médica del Interior, Comisión de Bioética, Asesor Legal. Universidad Austral de Buenos Aires, Cursos de Especialización Penal, Profesor de Postgrado. CLAEH, Facultad de Derecho, Derecho Penal, Profesor

Keywords:

CONFIDENTIALITY, MEDICAL RECORDS

Abstract

Introduction: this article aims to determine the legal status of the health care institution, considering it is the physical location where the private clinical data belonging to patients is kept in custody, which data is covered by the medical professional secrecy. In particular, all data included in the medical records are included in documents that are protected by the medical professional secrecy, and thus cannot be seized by the criminal law with the purpose of prosecuting the owners of said medical records. On these grounds, the health care institution shall be considered an inviolable "special domicile".
Objective: we aim to demonstrate that what enables sensitive and confidential information to be kept in the health care institution is the fact that leads to its having a privileged status of inviolability. The method used for such demonstration is strictly logical and is based on a syllogism. First, we need to demonstrate medical records are included in the medical professional secrecy. Next, we need to analyse whether the medical professional secrecy is inviolable and opposable to any judicial order.
Now, since the health care institution is the physical location where the inviolable documents (medical records) would be kept in custody, no judicial authority may order the search warrant of a health care institution with the purpose of seizing medical records when the patients are under investigation, unless they have especially authorized the judicial power to have access to their record.
Conclusions: the above mentioned analysis leads to the following conclusions:
 
a) the medical professional secrecy may not be relieved by any judicial authority without the prior and explicit consent by the patient;
b) medical records are covered by the medical professional secrecy and coercive access to it implies its mere violation;
c) the medical institutions, as physical locations where the medical records and private data are kept in custody enjoy a privileged status named "special domicile", that is similar to the lawyer's office and may not be subject to search warrants with the purpose of finding evidence against patients who are members of the institution.

 

References

(1) Adriasola G. La historia clínica y el secreto profesional médico. Tribuna del Abogado 2011; 175:9-12.
(2) Cervini R, Adriasola G, Clavijo M. El secreto profesional frente a la administración tributaria. Buenos Aires: BdeF, 2006.
(3) Cabezudo Bajo MJ. La inviolabilidad del domicilio y el proceso penal. Madrid: Iustel, 2004. p. 38.
(4) García González J. Intervenciones de terceros en el correo electrónico: especial referencia al ámbito laboral y policial. In: Romeo Casabona C., coord. El cibercrimen: nuevos retos jurídico-penales, nuevas respuestas político criminales. Granada: Comares, 2006. p. 315-6.
(5) Venezuela. Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. Audiencia constitucional: Exp. 11.974. Disponible en: http://jca.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/2007/noviembre/732-8-11974-.html. Consulta: 7 marzo 2012.
(6) Luna Maldonado A. Problemas médico legales del manejo de la historia clínica. Rev Latinoam Der Méd Medic Leg 2000; 5(1): 39-47. Disponible en: http://www.binasss.sa.cr/revistas/rldmml/v5n1/art7.pdf. Consulta: 5 febrero 2012.
(7) Argentina. Ministerio Público Fiscal. Recurso de casación interpuesto por el Ministerio Público Fiscal en causa nro. 62.204 - TCP (Buenos Aires) -Sala III - 03/10/2002. Disponible en: http://www.eldial.com.ar/suplementos/procesal/jurisprudencia/j_00004.asp. Consulta: 5 febrero 2012.
(8) Argentina. Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional de Capital Federal en Pleno. (L.L.123 -842; J.A. 966-V-69).
(9) Sabalete Moya J. El secreto médico: aspectos jurídicos. Disponible en: http://www.leysab.com/descargas/secretomedico.pdf. Consulta: 14 febrero 2012.
(10) España. Ministerio de la Presidencia. Jurisprudencia Constitucional Número de referencia: 22/1984 (Sentencia). Disponible en: http://www.boe.es/aeboe/consultas/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=tc&id=SENTENCIA-1984-0022. Consulta: 5 febrero 2012.
(11) Bayardo Bengoa F. La tutela penal del secreto. Montevideo: Facultad de Derecho, 1961. p. 323.
(12) Tribunal Supremo Español. Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo Español de 11 de octubre de 1993.
(13) Aguiar Guevara R. La historia clínica, el deber ser. Disponible en: http://www.ragaso.com/indexos/articulos.htm - La_Historia_Cl%C3%ADnica:_el_deber_ser%E2%80%A6. Consulta: 16 febrero 2012.
(14) Scalia A, Garner BA. Making your case: the art of persuading judges. Saint Paul,Minnesota: Thomson, 2008.
(15) Rodríguez Almada H. Sobre la relación clínica entre el médico y la persona privada de libertad. In: Meirelles Gomes JC. A lógica da maldade: a violencia em nome da Medicina. 2ª ed. Montes Claros: Unimontes, 2005.

Published

2012-07-31

How to Cite

1.
Adriasola G. Inviolability of the health care institution: Protecting the patient’s privacy and history. Rev. Méd. Urug. [Internet]. 2012 Jul. 31 [cited 2024 Sep. 7];28(2):128-41. Available from: https://revista.rmu.org.uy/index.php/rmu/article/view/352