Confidentiality doesn’t end at the courtroom door even when your patient is Erin Patterson
The Erin Patterson mushroom poisoning case has fascinated and horrified Australians, along with many others around the world who followed the trial as it played out in the small Victorian town of Morwell.
It’s the kind of case that draws intense media attention and provokes strong public emotions.
But for doctors involved, it also presents real ethical and professional risks.
Recently, a doctor who gave evidence in court about treating Ms Patterson at Leongatha Hospital spoke to national and international media.
He disclosed not only details of his clinical interactions but also shared personal views on her behaviour.
As a result, he has reportedly received numerous complaints, which may now be under consideration by AHPRA.
As a lawyer in the medical advocacy space and someone who assists doctors every day, I understand the pressure and emotional toll that can come with traumatic, high-profile cases.
Doctors are human. The need to be understood, to explain or even to process difficult experiences is real. But the rules around patient confidentiality are clear and uncompromising.
When doctors are required to give evidence in court, they are protected by legal safeguards that allow them to disclose relevant patient information.
These protections do not apply outside the courtroom. Once a doctor participates in a media interview, their full professional obligations resume.
Since the days of Hippocrates, doctors have had a strict obligation to keep patient information confidential.
Today, this obligation is included in privacy legislation as well as the Medical Board of Australia’s code of conduct.
When a patient discloses information in a consultation, it must not be shared with others — colleagues, family, or even other health professionals — unless the patient consents, the law requires it, or it is directly relevant to their care.
Even if the matter has been widely reported, sharing what appears to be public information still risks breaching confidentiality or being seen to act unprofessionally.
Confidentiality is not only a legal requirement, it is fundamental to the trust between doctor and patient, and to the public’s confidence in the profession.
Again, the medical board’s code of conduct is explicit: doctors must respect patient privacy and consider how their public comments may affect that trust.
This includes avoiding personal opinions or character judgements. Even in court, we advise doctors to focus solely on objective clinical facts and to avoid subjective commentary.
In this case, despite Ms Patterson’s convictions for three murders and an attempted murder, she was still a patient.
Yet the doctor publicly shared his initial suspicions and described her in terms such as “crazy bitch” and “disturbed sociopathic nutbag”. Comments like these clearly breach professional expectations.
Speaking to the media in this way can lead to formal complaints, professional reprimands or more serious disciplinary action.
Doctors may also risk breaching their employment contracts.
Unauthorised public comments can be considered misconduct by employers and may lead to dismissal.
Georgie Haysom is general manager of advocacy, education and research at Avant Mutual, and a member of the South Eastern Sydney Clinical Ethics Committee.
Read more: The GP who treated triple murderer Erin Patterson tells his story
