[yomly]

Quite surprised to see such strong opinions on this issue - I can obviously sympathise with a desire to privacy but personally hold faith in doctor confidentiality.

More pressingly - how can a doctor provide the best care in the absence of records?

Imagine trying to ship a bugfix for a complex system where you don't have the source code and the business owner is refusing to give you the documentation but will sue you and ruin your career if you make a mistake.

I'd probably refuse to see the patient given how much pressure doctors are under to not make a mistake.

What happens if you got a nasty gash and wanted the wound treated and the doctor wanted to issue antibiotics as a precaution but you had a penicillin allergy (which you either forgot to disclose or simply didn't know about but were tested for at some stage in your childhood)

[int_19h]

Whether you should or shouldn't share that information with your doctor is a different question, and is the one where trust etc is relevant. The point here is that the choice to share or not share should be the patient's, regardless. If doctors want to turn down patients that wouldn't share something, that's up to them, of course.

[leetcrew]

> Quite surprised to see such strong opinions on this issue

you shouldn't be. to a certain group of people, it is particularly loathsome to be prohibited from doing things that can only hurt the person doing them. this is basically how we treat children.

a patient should be allowed to limit access to their medical records for pretty much any reason. an individual doctor should also be allowed to refuse to treat a patient who is unwilling to disclose part or all of their medical records; they may have valid liability concerns. but revealing your records should not be a precondition to accessing the entire field of medicine. what part of this do you have a problem with? you still get to deal with your doctors however you want.