This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

JOHN M. SUAREZ, MD; EUGENE J. BALCANOFF, MD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1966;15(6):619-623.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

THE DILEMMAS of confidentiality and privileged communication have challenged, puzzled, and annoyed judges, lawyers, and many other professionals for quite some time. In the case of medicine in general and psychiatry in particular, the issues pro and con have been developed lucidly many times,^1-6 and the fact that no answer or universally accepted compromise has been reached suggests vividly that no simple solutions exist. The study reported below deals exclusively with privileged communication, and not with the border issue of confidentiality.

The term "privileged communication" applies to a specific situation afforded by statute, which applies to the relationship between a professional (eg, psychiatrist, lawyer, clergyman) and his patient (client, parishioner) for the sake of the latter. If privileged communication exists, then the professional may not be forced to reveal in the courtroom any aspect of his transaction with the individual, unless permitted by the individual, and in this refusal . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
LOS ANGELES; NEEDHAM, MASS

From the Boston University Law-Medicine Institute.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication April 27, 1966.

Reprint requests to 24 Coulton Park, Needham, Mass (Dr. Balcanoff).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?