03 February 2012 / James Penry-davey

Issue: 7499 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Regulatory

printer

mail-detail

Open wide?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Open wide?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits

A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’

back-to-top-scroll