Confidentiality, Codes and Courts: An Examination of the Significance of Professional Guidelines on Medical Ethics in Determining the Legal Limits of Confidentiality

Moodie, Peter; Wright, Moira

doi:10.1177/147377950002900103

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is arguable that this should also include the related psychological harm that disclosure could prevent. 85 Reference to both physical and psychological harm can be found in the GMC guidance 86 which requires doctors to consider the potential harm or distress to the patient whose confidentiality is breached, as well as potential harm to trust in doctors generally caused by a perception of readiness to disclose. In addition, the justification to prevent and detect serious crime might include significant financial or property theft which could be understood to include harm outside harm to health -physical and psychological.…”

Section: Is the Nature And Level Of Harm To Be Avoided Explained?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Confidentiality and public interest disclosure: A framework to evaluate UK healthcare professional regulatory guidance

Snelling

Quick

2022

Medical Law International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confidentiality and disclosure of information in the public interest present difficult dilemmas for healthcare practitioners and call for clear legal and regulatory guidance. The common law duty of confidence, and established exceptions to it, are shaped by medical practice and detailed guidance produced by the General Medical Council. Guidance issued by other healthcare regulators in a highly fragmented environment is at best unclear and at worst inaccurate. This article assembles and justifies a framework of evaluation against which regulators’ guidance can be assessed, focussing on the specific issue of when the duty of confidentiality can be set aside in the public interest. Comparison of statutory regulators’ guidance reveals wide variation which creates uncertainty for practitioners confused by inconsistency between guidance documents. The results of this analysis raise questions about the relationship between common law and regulatory guidance, in particular, whether it is appropriate to recognize different standards for different healthcare professions. This article argues that there is an opportunity to correct this anomaly and ensure appropriate consistency as part of a wider review of healthcare professional regulation.

show abstract

Section: Is the Nature And Level Of Harm To Be Avoided Explained?mentioning

confidence: 99%