header-logo header-logo

Open wide?

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

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

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll