Watching Law & Order, and it made me wonder something:
Situation 1: A biochemist concocts a “cure” for breast cancer (for example) that they know will not work. They convince people to use their cure, and those people think of this PhD as their MD.
Situation 2: A biochemist concocts a cure for breast cancer (for example) that they show in clinical trials is effective. They convince people to use their cure, and those people think of this PhD as their MD.
Does doctor-patient privilege extend in either of these cases? Does it depend on the state?
I believe, going from memory, that the model rule provides that a “physician” for the purposes of privilege is not only a licensed M.D., but also a psychotherapist, psychologist, and even a person who the patient has reasonable grounds to believe is one of the above. This protects patients from reasonable mistakes regarding unlicensed practitioners - quacks, if you will.
In Virginia, the privilege is restricted to civil actions. There is no such privilege available in federal courts.
To be more accurate, there is no federal law that recognizes the privilege, but federal courts will recognize it whenever they are applying state law and the state recognizes it.