Contract; contents; generic terms; a doctor's duty to act with reasonable care and skill.
Facts: After an operation to insert breast implants, Breen noticed troubling symptoms and consulted Williams, a doctor. Williams treated Breen over a long period but in the end the implants (which were faulty) had to be removed. Breen wanted to join in a class action that was being brought against the manufacturers of the implants. To join the class action, she required the medical records of her treatment from Williams. He refused to hand them over unless Breen first indemnified him against any possible liability. She refused to give him the indemnity, but still wanted the records. She argued that, because it was in her best interests that she have the records, Williams was contractually obliged to make them available.
Issue: Does the law make it a term of a contract between doctor and patient that the doctor must act in the best interests of the patient?
Decision: In the absence of agreed terms, the law only makes it a term of a contract between a doctor and patient that the doctor exercise reasonable care and skill. There is no implied term that a doctor must act in the patient's best interests (which is a higher level of care).
Reason: Gaudron and McHugh JJ said (at [12]):
"If a doctor owed such a duty [to act in the patient's best interests], he or she would be liable for any act that objectively was not in the best interests of the patient. The doctor would be liable for treatment that went wrong although he or she had acted without negligence. That is not the law of Australia."