Abstract
An Australian legal precedent exists for medical practitioners regarding testing for STIs. In the New South Wales Supreme Court case of BT v Oei, it was found that a doctor has a duty of care to offer testing for other STIs to a patient with one STI or a suspected STI.3 In that case, a sexual partner of an HIV-positive patient brought successful legal action against her partner’s doctor for failing to diagnose HIV infection in her partner. The doctor was found negligent in failing to offer an HIV test to a patient with ongoing symptoms who had been found to be infected with hepatitis B virus and whose only risk factor for this infection was unprotected sex. The doctor’s duty of care was found to extend to the patient’s sexual partner, who became infected with HIV after unprotected sex with her partner. Given that best-practice guidelines and a legal precedent exist which confirm that a medical practitioner should offer testing for other STIs to a patient with one STI or a suspected STI, what are the medicolegal implications of the Health Insurance Commission’s three-test rule?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
