If, during a medical examination, an alleged accused says anything that might incriminate himself, it should be neither recorded nor reported.[emphasis mine]
source: Synopsis of forensic medicine and Toxicology by K.S. Narayan Reddy
Country: India
Why should the officer not record this clue? or report it? If the convict is self incriminating (though by ignorance) then why not take advantage?
If such conversations are reported, it can place the suspect in a dilemma.
Consider a man who appears to have overdosed on illegal narcotics. He is taken to the hospital, and the doctor asks what kind of drugs he took, in order to plan his treatment. If the man thinks that what he says could be used to prosecute him, he might lie to the doctor. Then he would not receive proper medical treatment, putting his health at risk.
Lawmakers or police authorities might decide that it is better for society for people to always be able to speak freely to their doctors and receive proper treatment, even if it means that it will sometimes be harder to prosecute criminals. That would be one possible rationale for a rule like this.
In the United States, whatever you say to your doctor or form you fill out is protected by the doctor-patient privilige.
If a district attorney or prosecutor were to present a recording or file of this in court, it would be deemed inadmissible by the judge based on the previously mentioned privilege. Furthermore, your doctor would not be able to testify on the prosecution's behalf about any conversation he or she had with you.
In India, there is a similar privilege in the Code of Medical Ethics Regulation. In section 2.2 it states:
Confidences concerning individual or domestic life entrusted by patients to a physician and defects in the disposition or character of patients observed during medical attendance should never be revealed unless their revelation is required by the laws of the State.
