The Court of Appeal in Guimarães ruled that a doctor from the ACES (Group of Health Centers) in Braga will have to break professional secrecy and testify as a witness in an investigation on suspicion of drug trafficking crimes.
According to Newspaperwhich advanced the news, a patient, former drug addict, confided to the doctor that a friend who works at the hospital gave him morphine. The health professional refused to name names and the Medical Association supported him, but the court ruled that the breach of confidentiality is enforceable.
The investigation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) of Braga “began with the participation of the ARS [Administração Regional de Saúde] do Norte reporting that, in a medical consultation, an ex-drug addict user, during the investigation of some agic complaints, revealed that he used subcutaneous morphine that “a friend” who works at the local hospital “gives him”, describing, in detail, either the morphine packaging wants the procedure, including the use of subcutaneous needles that the same “friend” provides him”, says the judgment.
The MP considered that this situation could be part of the practice of crimes of embezzlement and another of drug trafficking aggravated.
“Once the investigative steps had begun, the doctor who, in that consultation, obtained such information was questioned, who confirmed the situation, but, urged to identify the user and the aforementioned friend who worked at the hospital, invoked the duty of secrecy to under the Statute of the Order of Physicians and the Code of Ethics”.
It was at that time that the MP requested the necessary authorization from the Medical Association, which legitimized the position of the clinician, not authorizing the lifting of professional secrecy.
The magistrate responsible for the inquiry considered that without this information it is not possible to identify the suspects, and the testimony of the aforementioned doctor is essential. The records were then sent to the judge, who considered the refusal legitimate and sent the case to the Court of Appeal of Guimarães.
The judges now invoke article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on “Professional Secrecy”, indicating in point number 3 that the intervention of the “court immediately superior to the one where the incident arose can decide on the provision of testimony with breach professional secrecy”.
“O duty of professional secrecy is not an absolute duty, that is, it does not always prevail over any duty which conflicts with it. In January, the judges of Appeal said, in the ruling, that the breach of medical confidentiality is required given the “preponderance of the interest of public administration”.
ZAP // 
