THE two most sacred of non-marital relationships are that between a minister of religion and one of the faithful and that between a doctor and a patient. But when it comes to money - even government money - nothing is sacred in Hong Kong.
So two senior tax assessors - an Assistant Commissioner of the Inland Revenue Department, Chan Sui-keung and senior assessor Lai Au Che-chun - feel justified in violating the bond of confidentiality between a doctor and his patient in their pursuit of tax dollars.
Mr Chan and Mrs Lai are at the centre of the department's seizure of 9,000 patients' files from the offices of Dr Patrick Shiu.
Never mind that the patients are innocent of whatever allegations might be made against Dr Shiu; never mind that the patients' files contain information of the utmost intimacy and confidentiality, given to the doctor on the understanding that it remains private; never mind that the seizure sends a signal to future administrators that a gross intrusion into personal privacy is acceptable in Hong Kong - the tax officers feel free to use whatever grubby means they want to grab money they believe might be owed.
Yet some actions are - or should be - unacceptable. Whatever the case against Dr Shiu, whatever the suspicions the tax assessors may harbour as to the state of his books and records, the confidentiality of the doctor-client relationship must not be interfered with. The authorities have no more right to pry into a patient's identity and problems than to breach the confidentiality of the relationship between a penitent and his confessor.
Personal privacy is one of the basic rights of every citizen - and one enshrined in Article 14 of the Bill of Rights. Thus the protection of the citizen's privacy is not simply a matter of medical ethics - nor, indeed, only a matter of civil liberties. It is, or should be, a matter of law.
Whatever legal rights the Inland Revenue Department may believe it has under its own enabling ordinance, the right to seize confidential medical records must surely have been nullified by the Bill of Rights. The search warrant the Senior Assessor in the case says legally and properly authorises the seizure of patients' cards should legitimately do no such thing.
