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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll