In Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp, 460 Mich 26, 37; 594 NW2d 455 (1999), the Supreme Court of Michigan held that the name of an unknown patient is privileged information, and that where a patient has neither voluntarily nor impliedly waived the privilege, there are strong public policy reasons for applying the privilege to disclosure of an unknown patient's name. Id. at 48. The majority of the Dorris Court specifically held that "defendant hospitals have a duty to refrain from disclosure." Id. at 28. The Dorris Court reasoned as follows: Historically, confidentiality has been understood to be necessary to promote full disclosure of a patient's medical history and present medical concerns. See Breisenmeister v. Knights of Pythias, 81 Mich 525, 531; 45 NW 977 (1890). As the dissent notes, "information falls within the purview of the physician-patient privilege only if it was 'necessary' to enable a physician 'to prescribe' for a patient." The dissent goes on to argue that we have disregarded this language and render the language of the statute surplusage. However, patients armed with the knowledge that their name may not be kept confidential may not be as willing to reveal their full medical history for fear that, ultimately, that information, too, may lose its confidential status. This chilling of the patient's desire to disclose would have a detrimental effect on the physician's ability to provide effective and complete medical treatment and is therefore "necessary" to enable a physician "to prescribe" for a patient. We hold that the names of unknown patients are protected by the physician-patient privilege, MCL 600.2159; MSA 27A.2157, and that the defendant hospitals have a duty to refrain from disclosure. Id. at 38-39, 48.