Without the patient's consent the doctor wouldn't operate.
A patient has to sign a confidentiality agreement indicating whom may have access to the medical information and that is the main point. No one can legally have access to the patient information computerized or otherwise without express written consent from the patient.
Per HIPPA, disclosure of medical information must be secure and controlled. In this case, if the Doctor is a resident of the hospital where the patient resides, the Doctor is considered a secure and controlled release. It is under a HIPPA rule, a disclosure, but not a violation. A visiting Doctor is not allowed access to patient records without the patient consent.
true
some courts have held disclosure can't be permitted without consent of both the patient and the family members
Businesses that work closely with client information will generally have a privacy act in place. This act states that for no reason will the business share any client information with competitors or to the public without prior consent from the client. The client can hold the company legally responsible for any disclosed information.
It is not malpractice; however it would be a violation of the Federal HIPAA law (or if not in the USA, the local equivalent patient privacy laws). HIPAA is an acronym for the Health Information Privacy Protection Act. It prohibits medical personnel from divulging certain medical information of patients to others without the patient's consent. If a physician gives out medical information without your consent, he or she would not be guilty of malpractice but would be in violation of federal law. This could subject the physician to penalties and damages - both from the government and potentially from patients if they can show harm from the disclosure. In the EU, the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC also makes it illegal for a doctor to share information without patient consent except in certain limited situations. Most other jurisdictions have similar laws.
Battery
If Dr. Bob can get informed consent without jeopardizing the life of the patient then he should do so. If stopping to get consent will risk the life of the patient then he should consider the consent implied and save the life.
Doctors are never allowed to reveal medical information about a patient without said patient's consent, regardless of what legal proceedings are going on. Doctor-patient confidentiality is legally binding, and if they break it then you can sue them for that too. Of course, if the medical information is evidence in the law suit it will need to be revealed to the lawyers/judge/jury/etc.
Medical records can't be released to anyone without signed consent from the patient. There are laws that protect the privacy of patients and their medical information called HIPPA.
Unauthorized?