I have previously reported on issues that arise for emergency services personnel when taking photos (see https://australianemergencylaw.com/?s=photo) and in particular the risk for health professionals such as paramedics – see: 

Another health professional, this time a medical practitioner has also found out that it is not ok to take photos at work and publish them, in this case in a book – see Health Ombudsman v Rathie [2026] QCAT 180 (and I thank Bill Madden’s WordPress for bringing this case to my attention). 

Dr Rathie is an anaesthetist who worked at Toowoomba Base Hospital. Whilst there he published ‘The Anaesthetic Picture Book’. In this book he aimed to depict ‘his day-to-day life as an anaesthetist at TBH by choosing a photo-based format and randomly allocating one photo to each day of the year’ ([13]).  At [16]:

The book comprised a series of photographs and commentary marked from 1 January to 31 December, with an introduction stating:

This book is written for the purposes of amusement and bemusement. You may well learn a thing or three about subjects that were otherwise unlikely to become lodged in your hippocampus. This book will appeal to anaesthetic types of all grades as well as to those in the healthcare industry as well as non-medical types.

Contained herein is a compilation of images collected over the last year or two during my work as an anaesthetist in a busy regional hospital in Queensland, Australia. One picture (or more) for each day of the year. The images are randomly ordered, and all identifying material of individuals has been removed. Many of them have a quiz component with the answer usually being given on the following page down the bottom.

The vast majority of photos have been taken by me. My colleagues and anaesthetic assistants have got used to me prowling the corridors with my homemade reflection diffuser (see below). It never fails to please me that you learn something new every day in the operating theatre. I trust you will find the contents of this book interesting at the least and revelatory at best.

As a result two matters were referred to QCAT; they were

that the Respondent:

(a) had breached patient confidentiality and privacy by, without patients’ consent:

(i) taking photographs of unnamed patient clinical records, including medical imaging and other entries;

(ii) taking and/or accessing photographs of unnamed patients’ surgical procedures, and foreign items retrieved during procedures;

(iii) taking and/or accessing photographs of unnamed patients undergoing procedures or examination;

(iv) publishing these photographs in the book, with each page nominating a date, and including commentary regarding unnamed patients’ medical conditions and/or nature of procedure and/or personal features or characteristics;

and

(b) had published or caused to be published inappropriate and/or insensitive commentary about patients, including comments about patients’ weight, reasons for attendance or medical procedures they required, and attributing them nicknames in the context of their attendance for treatment.

The Tribunal said (at [30]-[31]):

The self-publication of the book, consisting of photographs of unnamed patients’ surgical procedures and commentary on their medical conditions, constitutes a significant breach of patients’ privacy and confidentiality and betrays the trust placed in the Respondent by his patients. The commentary about patients’ weight, personal features and reasons for attendance reflects a lack of sensitivity and compassion and a disregard for the vulnerability of patients.

The risk of patient identification was materially heightened by the circumstances in which the Respondent chose to publish the book. The Respondent practiced in a small regional centre, and the book repeatedly referenced his place of practice. It also included photographs taken within the hospital, as well as images of colleagues, and reproduced blueprints of proposed hospital developments. The Respondent further promoted the book within the theatre tearoom and the anaesthetist staffroom at TBH. Collectively, these matters significantly increased the likelihood that patients could be identified, notwithstanding the removal of direct identifying particulars.

The tribunal determined that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct. Doctor Rathie was reprimanded and fined $30,000 ([53).  As a warning to other practitioners the Tribunal said (at [47]):

… As avenues for personal publication continue to expand, including the increasing use of commercial platforms such as Amazon and the widespread dissemination of material through social media, it is necessary to state with clarity that the disclosure of patients’ personal information, by such means, without their consent is fundamentally incompatible with the obligations of a medical practitioner. This applies irrespective of whether the disclosure is motivated by personal gain, by an intention to amuse, or by the sharing of anecdotal “war stories.” Conduct of this kind constitutes a serious departure from professional standards and must attract condign disciplinary sanction, both to mark the gravity of the breach and to deter other practitioners from engaging in similar misuse of confidential patient information.

That warning must be true for all health practitioners, not just medical practitioners.  

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.