The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.
The author of this blog, David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.
For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.
The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Health Information Act of Alberta has recently come under the microscope as a result of a review of the legislation by a committee of the Alberta legislature (see Alberta legislature committee recommends changes to the Health Information Act (HIA)). The President of the AMA has expressed concerns about the many categories of non-treatment-related disclosures of personal health information that can be made without the knowledge and consent of the patient. See the recent article in the Medical Post (19 October 2004):
MedicalPost.com: AMA concerned law does not protect confidentiality:
What the Health Information Act lacks is a fundamental commitment that, in non-direct-care situations, protecting patient privacy is more important than sharing information, Dr. Ballantine explained. The association believes that patient privacy should be regarded as more important than sharing information for non-direct-care purposes.
Patients expect that physicians and other providers will share their health information to provide direct care. Patients don't expect, though, that their information can be shared, without consent, for all of the non-direct-care purposes authorized by the act. That's where the problem lies, she stressed...."
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.