IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cvg/stlaju/v4y2025i5p1-7.html

Analysis of Breen v Williams: A Critical Examination of the Doctor-Patient Fiduciary Relationship

Author

Listed:
  • Junlin Wang

    (LL.M., The University of Sydney, Camperdown NSW 2050, Australia)

Abstract

This paper critically examines Breen v Williams, where the High Court of Australia rejected the view that doctors owe fiduciary duties to grant patients access to medical records. By restricting fiduciary obligations to negative duties, the Court overlooked patient vulnerability, trust, and the therapeutic realities of healthcare. Drawing on Canadian jurisprudence, particularly McInerney v MacDonald, the paper highlights the divergence from international approaches that affirm positive disclosure duties. It argues for a reformed fiduciary framework aligned with patient autonomy, while noting that legislative reforms, such as the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW), have partially addressed these gaps.

Suggested Citation

  • Junlin Wang, 2025. "Analysis of Breen v Williams: A Critical Examination of the Doctor-Patient Fiduciary Relationship," Studies in Law and Justice, Pioneer Academic Publishing Limited, vol. 4(5), pages 1-7, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cvg:stlaju:v:4:y:2025:i:5:p:1-7
    DOI: 10.56397/SLJ.2025.10.01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.pioneerpublisher.com/slj/article/view/1450/1348
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.56397/SLJ.2025.10.01?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cvg:stlaju:v:4:y:2025:i:5:p:1-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.pioneerpublisher.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.