Health Rights & Medical Law
Those Are Our Records
Doctor refuses to provide access to medical records
Premium
foundational
7 minutes
The Situation
What They Said
“Those are our records, not yours. We don't have to give them to you.”
The claim that medical records 'belong' to the practice rather than the patient is one of the most persistent misconceptions in Australian healthcare. While it is technically correct that the physical or digital file is the property of the healthcare provider, this has nothing to do with whether the patient has the right to access the information those records contain. Australian privacy law is clear: patients have the right to access their own health information, and healthcare providers are obliged to provide it.
The practical consequences of being denied access to your own medical records can be serious. A patient seeking a second opinion cannot present their history. A person managing a chronic condition cannot verify what treatments have been tried or what tests have been run. Someone seeking compensation for a medical error cannot obtain the evidence they need. In every case, the person most harmed by the denial is the patient whose health and decision-making capacity depends on that information.
Healthcare providers who refuse access often cite reasons like 'it could confuse you' or 'we need to interpret them for you first'. While healthcare providers can in narrow circumstances restrict access to avoid serious harm, these are specific exceptions — not a general licence to withhold information from people about their own bodies. Under Australia's privacy framework, the default is access, and the burden lies with the provider to justify any exception.
The Fallacy
Custodian-as-Owner Fallacy — Conflating Physical Custody of Records with Ownership of Health Information
The claim that records belong to the practice is a conflation of two distinct legal concepts: ownership of the physical or digital medium (the file, the system, the paper) and the right of access to the health information contained within that medium. The Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles operate on the information itself, not the medium. A patient's right of access under APP 12 applies regardless of who owns the filing cabinet or the computer system.
This fallacy is particularly damaging because it sounds plausible. Medical practices do own their records management infrastructure, and they do have obligations around how records are stored and secured. But this custodian role creates obligations toward the patient — including the obligation to provide access — rather than a right to withhold information from the very person the record is about.
The claim also ignores the structure of My Health Records Act 2012, which creates an additional access pathway entirely outside the control of individual practices. The national My Health Record system gives patients direct access to their own health summary, including documents uploaded by their healthcare providers. A patient who is refused access through the practice can access much of the same information directly through their My Health Record.
What the Law Says
Your Legal Foundation
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Australian Privacy Principle 12 — Access to personal information
“If an APP entity holds personal information about an individual, the entity must, on request by the individual, give the individual access to the information. An APP entity that holds health information about an individual must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to give the individual access to that information.”
Health information is a category of sensitive personal information under the Privacy Act, and APP 12 creates an explicit right of access for the individual whose information it is. A healthcare provider that holds health information about a patient is an APP entity and is directly bound by this obligation. Refusing access without a lawful basis is a breach of APP 12 and can be reported to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Australian Privacy Principle 12.3 — Exceptions to access
“An APP entity is not required to give access to the extent that giving access would pose a serious threat to the life, health or safety of any individual, or to public health or public safety; or giving access would have an unreasonable impact on the privacy of other individuals; or the request for access is frivolous or vexatious.”
The exceptions to the access right are narrow and specific. A general refusal based on ownership claims does not engage any of these exceptions. To rely on the 'serious threat' exception, the provider must have a genuine, evidence-based belief that providing access would cause harm — which is a high threshold that is not met by routine requests for a patient's own records.
My Health Records Act 2012 (Cth)
Section 6 — definition of 'My Health Record' — Individual access to My Health Record
“A My Health Record, in relation to an individual (the subject of the My Health Record), means the electronic record established under section 43 for the individual in the My Health Record system.”
Every Australian has a My Health Record by default (unless they have opted out), which they can access directly through the government portal. Health information uploaded by their providers — including clinical notes, test results, and prescriptions — is accessible this way. A patient denied access by a practice can obtain a significant portion of their health information directly through the My Health Record system, bypassing the provider entirely.
What Scripture Says
God's Word on This
Hosea 4:6 (NIV)
“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.”
Withholding knowledge from those who need it to survive is identified in Scripture as an act of destruction. A patient denied access to their own medical records is denied the knowledge they need to participate in decisions about their own health. Knowledge about one's own body and health is not a privilege to be rationed by gatekeepers — it is a form of the life-sustaining information Hosea describes.
Proverbs 11:14 (NIV)
“For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.”
The wisdom of Proverbs consistently values access to information as a source of good outcomes. A patient who has full access to their own medical history can seek multiple professional opinions, verify diagnoses, and make informed decisions about their treatment. Restricting that access does not protect the patient — it diminishes their ability to navigate their own healthcare wisely.
🔒
You Know the Law — But Do You Know What to Say?
Reading your rights is one thing. Using them under pressure — calmly, correctly, in the right words — is what actually protects you. Members get the scripted rebuttal for this exact situation: what to say first, what to say if they push back, the tone to use, and the constitutional provision to cite. Practise out loud with audio until it's automatic.
Unlock This Scenario — R89/month
Identity & Dignity and Gender & Equality are free · All 17 domains from R89/month · Cancel anytime
Not ready to subscribe? Get the free checklist first.
10 South African rights scenarios — what to say, what to cite, what to refuse. Free, no card needed.
What They'll Say Next
Common Counter-Arguments
After you respond, they may push back with these arguments. Members get the full rebuttal for each.
They might say: “Some of those records contain sensitive information about third parties. We can't release those.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
They might say: “You're involved in litigation. Our lawyers have advised us not to release records until the case is resolved.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
They might say: “We charge $2 per page for record copies. Your file is 200 pages. Pay the $400 first.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
Know Your Rights. Know Your Word.
149 South African rights scenarios — exact rebuttals, constitutional law, and Scripture. Practise out loud with audio. Free to start with 2 full domains.
Try Free — Identity & Dignity
No credit card · Upgrade anytime for all 17 domains