A psychiatrist in Melbourne has started requiring new patients to agree to AI note-taking during their sessions. If patients refuse, they must seek care elsewhere. This policy marks a shift in how mental health professionals use artificial intelligence to manage clinical records.

The psychiatrist’s registration form clearly states patients must consent to AI transcription software. This software listens to sessions and creates notes to help with clinical letters and reports. The form warns that those who decline will need their doctor to find another provider.

Using AI scribes is growing fast in healthcare. Nearly two in five general practitioners now use them. These tools help reduce paperwork and free up doctors’ time. But not everyone welcomes AI’s role, especially in sensitive areas like mental health.

Some patients feel uneasy about AI listening to deeply personal conversations. One patient who refused AI note-taking said the psychiatrist’s form seemed defensive. They suspected others had objected before. Still, they stayed because finding a trusted psychiatrist is hard.

Balancing Efficiency and Privacy Concerns

AI transcription tools promise faster, more accurate notes. But experts warn about security risks. Medical data is sensitive, and breaches could harm patients. Digital rights advocates say AI systems often reflect biases too. For example, they work best with English-speaking, white, male voices, which can cause errors for others.

Companies providing AI scribes maintain they protect data well. Some use local servers and do not sell patient information. They also run third-party audits to keep data secure. But doctors still must review AI-generated notes for accuracy.

The head of policy at a digital rights group highlighted a “very real risk” of data leaks. He urged caution when using AI to handle medical records. Patients should know how their data is stored and used before consenting.

What This Means for Mental Health Care

Mental health services face rising demand. AI tools can help psychiatrists manage heavy workloads. But requiring AI consent may limit patient choice. Patients uncomfortable with AI could face longer waits or need to switch doctors. This adds strain during a vulnerable time.

Clinics say psychiatrists decide independently about AI use. They disclose the technology to patients and ask for consent. If consent is denied, AI won’t be used. But the Melbourne psychiatrist’s policy differs by making consent mandatory for new patients.

This approach raises questions about patient rights. Should AI use be optional in healthcare? Or is it okay to require consent for efficiency? The debate reflects wider concerns about AI in medicine—balancing innovation with trust.

As AI becomes common, patients will likely see more policies like this. Transparency and clear communication will be key. Doctors and patients must discuss the benefits and risks openly. That way, AI can support care without compromising privacy or comfort.

For now, this case shows how AI is changing mental health care. It’s not just about technology. It’s about how we protect people’s trust while improving services.