Doctors must take care when talking to the media about celebrity patients.
The Medical Defence Union has this week issued advice to its members warning them to think very carefully before talking to the press even with the patient’s apparent consent.
The advice has been prompted by the media interest in the reality TV star Jade Goody, who is recovering in hospital following surgery to relieve pain in her bowel. The 27-year-old has terminal cancer and has been given just weeks to live.
“Famous names such as Jade Goody and Sir Terry Pratchett may decide to talk publicly about cervical cancer or Alzheimer’s Disease in order to raise awareness about their illnesses and for other more personal reasons. However, this does not mean that a doctor can comment freely about a famous patient’s treatment or prognosis, even when the celebrity has put many of the details in the public domain. Indeed, even confirming to the media that someone is a patient,without their explicit permission, is a breach of confidentiality,” warned MDU medico-legal advisor Dr Anahita Kirkpatrick.
“If patients asks you to issue a formal statement on their behalf, they would need to agree the content of such a statement with you. However, agreeing to be interviewed carries significant pitfalls in terms of patient consent. While you might agree general areas of discussion with the patient, neither you or the patient can be certain, in advance, what you might be asked or how you might respond. However cautious you may be there is still a possibility that you may inadvertently reveal details that the patient did not consent to being released, such as aspects of the celebrity’s medical history that are relevant to their current treatment,” she added.
The MDU tells doctors to always act in the best interest of their patients and follow the GMC’s guidance booklet: Confidentiality protecting and providing information (2004).
In a statement the MDU added: “Ultimately, the public interest can only be determined by the courts. However, it almost goes without saying that the public interest is not the same as what interests the public.
“If, on balance, you think it’s advisable not to comment about a patient to the media, you may prefer to explain that you are unable to comment because of the duty of confidentiality you owe to all your patients. In the MDU’s experience, many journalists recognise this ethical duty and will respect a doctor's decision not to speak about any patient if they understand the reason.”
