Restoration to practice of health practitioners removed for serious sexual misconduct: evaluating public confidence and assessing risk

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Griffith Law Review Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/10383441.2022.2060651
J. Millbank
{"title":"Restoration to practice of health practitioners removed for serious sexual misconduct: evaluating public confidence and assessing risk","authors":"J. Millbank","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2060651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines how the health system in Australia ensures public protection and confidence when making determinations about the reinstatement of health practitioners who have previously been deregistered for sexual misconduct. Three main issues are addressed: first, the lack of public process and accessible reasons concerning the majority of reinstatement decisions, with consequent omissions in the public record and impact upon public confidence. Second, a detailed analysis is undertaken of the limited available reinstatement decisions, to understand how legislative and jurisprudential criteria of public protection (including protecting patient safety, promoting professional standards and maintaining public confidence) are weighed against the ‘rehabilitative’ impetus within a context strongly influenced by health evidence and therapeutic considerations. Third, a call is made to develop a responsive, modern and transparent framework for understanding and assessing the impact on public confidence of disciplinary decisions concerning the reinstatement of health practitioners.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2060651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines how the health system in Australia ensures public protection and confidence when making determinations about the reinstatement of health practitioners who have previously been deregistered for sexual misconduct. Three main issues are addressed: first, the lack of public process and accessible reasons concerning the majority of reinstatement decisions, with consequent omissions in the public record and impact upon public confidence. Second, a detailed analysis is undertaken of the limited available reinstatement decisions, to understand how legislative and jurisprudential criteria of public protection (including protecting patient safety, promoting professional standards and maintaining public confidence) are weighed against the ‘rehabilitative’ impetus within a context strongly influenced by health evidence and therapeutic considerations. Third, a call is made to develop a responsive, modern and transparent framework for understanding and assessing the impact on public confidence of disciplinary decisions concerning the reinstatement of health practitioners.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
因严重性行为不端而被撤职的医务人员恢复工作:评估公众信心和评估风险
摘要本文探讨了澳大利亚卫生系统在决定恢复先前因性行为不端而被注销注册的卫生从业者的职务时,如何确保公众的保护和信心。解决了三个主要问题:第一,大多数复职决定缺乏公共程序和可获取的原因,从而导致公共记录中的遗漏,并影响公众信心。其次,对有限的可用恢复决定进行了详细分析,了解在健康证据和治疗考虑的强烈影响下,公共保护的立法和法理标准(包括保护患者安全、提高专业标准和保持公众信心)如何与“康复”动力进行权衡。第三,呼吁制定一个反应灵敏、现代化和透明的框架,以了解和评估有关恢复卫生从业者职务的纪律决定对公众信心的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Reconceptualising the crimes of Big Tech The current legal regime of the Indonesian outer small islands Mainstreaming climate change in legal education Skeletons in the cupboard: reading settler anxiety in Mabo and Love Post-enlargement (free) movement in the EU: who really counts as EU CITIZEN? understanding Dano through the lens of Orientalism
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1