itution. The Supreme Court concluded that the violation of the patient's right was “relatively minor” as the blood test involved no danger to the patient's health and the results could be restricted to only those who needed to know. This was outweighed by the doctor's interest in knowing if he was infected with HIV especially if he was considering beginning treatment with serious side effects.

The court argued the medical treatment agreement could involve “reasonable and fair” limits to rights, including a degree of care towards each other. “The patient can be required, even after the end of the agreement, to act within reasonable limits, to restrict damage caused to the doctor during treatment.”

Johan Legemaate, coordinator of legal policy for the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), said the case had a big psychological impact on doctors, who have felt that discussions about patients' rights were often one sided. “It does not change the overall situation of patients' rights and doctors' duties but it is very important for doctors to feel that, in specific situations, they have rights too,” he said.

<< 1 2 3