Mandatory Reporting for Doctors Could Be a Public Risk

Mandatory illness-reporting legislation that currently affects 14 health practitioner groups, including general practitioners, are under pressure for change by medico-legal experts.

Introduced in 2008-10, the laws, which took the ethical duty of doctor's reporting theirs' or other doctors' illnesses and made it a legal requirement, were viewed as a means to protect the public against poorly performing medical practitioners (there were a string of bad cases in the mid-2000s).

Now, based on a report published recently in the Journal of Law and Medicine (JLM) experts are saying the laws are a public risk due to their deterring doctors from seeking medical consults when needed. Amendments to the mandatory reporting laws are being supported by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and a 2011 Senate Committee inquiry.

A 2013 Beyond Blue survey of about 12,000 doctors found that the reasons doctors would avoid getting help with mental health issues included:

• lack of confidentiality or privacy (reported by 52%)

• embarrassment (37%)

• impact on registration and right to practice (34%)

• preference to rely on self or not seek help (30%)

• lack of time (29%)

• concerns about career development or progress (27%).

A University of Sydney psychiatrist, Associate Professor Louise Nash, who co-authored the JLM report, said the existing current mandatory reporting requirements were simply a "stumbling block".

"Current mandatory reporting requirements may be a deterrent for some doctors to seek medical care. However, without the mandatory reporting requirement, an ethical obligation remains to report a doctor who is considered a risk to public safety," she said.