header-logo header-logo

03 February 2012 / James Penry-davey
Issue: 7499 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Open wide?

When does public interest trump patient consent, asks James Penry-Davey

The core function of a healthcare regulator is to protect patients and the public; where necessary, this involves taking action against practitioners who may be unfit to practise, whether through ill health, misconduct or a criminal conviction. In order to enable regulatory bodies to investigate complaints about practitioners, Parliament has given most regulators broad powers to compel the disclosure to them of information and documents.

For example, under s 33B of the Dentists Act 1984 (DA 1984), the General Dental Council (GDC) can require any person (other than the person in respect of whom the information or document is sought) to supply information or produce any document which appears to be relevant to the discharge of the GDC’s fitness to practise functions, and may apply to the court for an order requiring its supply or production. Similar powers are available to other healthcare regulators such as the

General Medical Council.

What happens where the information or document obtained is a patient record? Some regulators will (unless it is impractical or inappropriate) write

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll