(dissenting). I dissent. In my *626view, in upholding the instant discovery order the majority opinion totally disregards the mandates of MCL 330.1750; MSA 14.800(750), governing the patient-psychiatrist privilege, and applies too narrowly the requirements of MCL 600.2157; MSA 27A.2157, pertaining to the physician-patient privilege.
MCL 330.1750(l)(c); MSA 14.800(750)(l)(c) defines a privileged communication as "a communication made to a psychiatrist or psychologist in connection with the examination, diagnosis, or treatment of a patient.” This definition does not require that the information imparted by the communication be "necessary” to treatment. Moreover, under MCL 330.1750(4); MSA 14.800(750)(4), even the fact of psychiatric or psychological consultation is generally not subject to disclosure:
In a proceeding in which subsections (2) and (3) prohibit disclosure of a communication made to a psychiatrist or psychologist in connection with the examination, diagnosis, or treatment of a patient, the fact that the patient has been examined or treated or undergone a diagnosis also shall not be disclosed unless the privileged communication is relevant to a determination by a health care insurer or health care corporation of its rights and liabilities under a policy, contract, or certificate of insurance or health care benefits.
Moreover, MCL 600.2157; MSA 27A.2157, pertaining to the physician-patient privilege, has been construed as prohibiting a physician from disclosing in the course of any action even the names of uninvolved patients where, as here, the patient or patients are not involved and do not consent. See, e.g., Schechet v Kesten, 372 Mich 346; 126 NW2d 718 (1964), and Gaertner v Michigan, 385 Mich 49; 187 NW2d 429 (1971). In other words, despite its *627apparent language, the statute has not been construed as limited to information solely necessary for treatment. The Michigan cases relied upon by plaintiff for the proposition that the privilege only covers those matters in connection with medical treatment are either unhelpful or distinguishable because either insufficient facts are presented in the cases to make them applicable here, the patient involved was a party to the suit and produced medical testimony which would constitute a waiver, or the circumstances described involved situations where there was no doubt medical treatment was sought. Such is not the situation here. Finally, in light of Schechet and Gaertner, supra, the Pennsylvania and New York cases cited by plaintiff do not control here.
It cannot be denied that this state has a strong historical commitment to far-reaching, open, and effective discovery. In my view, however, the conclusion that the statutory privileges embrace more than information necessary for medical treatment does not directly contradict the policy of liberal discovery in this state. Even pursuant to MCR 2.302(B)(1), discovery does not include privileged matters. The concept of privilege thus supersedes even the liberal discovery principles of this state. In keeping with this mandate, I would reverse the order of the trial court.