保密和公共利益披露:评估英国医疗保健专业监管指导的框架

Q2 Social Sciences
Paul C Snelling, O. Quick
{"title":"保密和公共利益披露:评估英国医疗保健专业监管指导的框架","authors":"Paul C Snelling, O. Quick","doi":"10.1177/09685332221079124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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 recognise 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.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"22 1","pages":"3 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confidentiality and public interest disclosure: A framework to evaluate UK healthcare professional regulatory guidance\",\"authors\":\"Paul C Snelling, O. Quick\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09685332221079124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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 recognise 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law International\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"3 - 32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332221079124\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332221079124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

出于公众利益的信息保密和披露给医疗从业者带来了难题,需要明确的法律和监管指导。普通法中的信任义务及其既定的例外情况是由医学实践和普通医学委员会制定的详细指南决定的。其他医疗监管机构在高度分散的环境中发布的指导意见往好了说是不清楚的,往坏了说是错误的。这篇文章汇集并证明了一个评估框架的合理性,根据该框架可以评估监管机构的指导意见,重点关注何时可以出于公共利益而放弃保密义务的具体问题。法定监管机构指导意见的比较揭示了巨大的差异,这给因指导文件之间的不一致而感到困惑的从业者带来了不确定性。这项分析的结果引发了人们对普通法和监管指导之间关系的质疑,特别是对不同医疗专业承认不同标准是否合适。这篇文章认为,作为对医疗专业监管进行更广泛审查的一部分,有机会纠正这种异常现象,并确保适当的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Confidentiality and public interest disclosure: A framework to evaluate UK healthcare professional regulatory guidance
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 recognise 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信