THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AND THE. RIGHT TO PRIVACY Wittiam A. Challener, Jr.* ‘The relation between a physician and his patient is one which necessarily requires that the patient make a full and frank disclosure to his physician of intimate, personal and private information in order that the latter can make an informed diagnosis and render proper treatment. The relationship, there- fore, is one of trust and confidence and requires the physician to exercise the ‘utmost good faith and fair dealing in his relations with his patient. The relationship of trust and confidence which is thus created, imposes certain definite legal responsibilities upon the physician, 2 few of which will be the subject of discussion in this paper. ‘The right of privacy has been defined as the right to be let alone. ‘The recognition and development of this right has been said to be the outstanding illustration of the influence of legal periodicals upon the courts* In 1890, Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, published their now famous article on this subject entitled “The Right to Privacy.”* They argued ‘that there should be a judicial recognition and enforcement of a right to privacy because: ‘.. « the press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which ie pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste, the details of sexual re- lations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers. To cecupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gos can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle.” Since the publication of their article, a majority of the courts which have considered the question have recognized the existence of e common law right of privacy,? while in some jurisdictions, where the courts have declined to recognize such a right, a right of privacy has been created by statute ‘The American Law Institute, in its Restatement of the Law of Torts, formu- lates the principle of libility for a violation of the right of privacy, as follows: “A person who unreasonably and seriously interferes with ancther’s interest * Member of Bar of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Counsel, Allegheny County Med- ial Assocation, 1, Prosser ow Torts §107 (1941). 2, Warren and Brandels, The Right to Privacy, # Hawv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). 3, Alabama, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kan- sas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Misecuri, North Carolina, New Jeceey, Oregon, Penn sylsania, South Carolina. 4, New York and Utah, 5. 4 Resraremenr, Torrs § 857. (624)