Medical Law Review最新文献

For doctors with mental health or substance use disorders, publication of their name and sensitive medical history in disciplinary decisions may adversely impact their health and may reinforce barriers to accessing early support and treatment. This article challenges the view that naming impaired doctors or disclosing the intimate details of their medical condition in disciplinary decisions always serves the public interest in open justice. We analysed and compared the approach of Australian and New Zealand health tribunals to granting orders that suppress the name and/or medical history of impaired doctors. This revealed that Australian tribunals are less likely to grant non-publication orders compared to New Zealand, despite shared common law history and similar medical regulatory frameworks. We argue that Australian tribunals could be more circumspect when dealing with sensitive information in published decisions, especially where such information does not directly form a basis for the decision reached. This could occur without compromising public protection or the underlying goals of open justice. Finally, we argue that a greater distinction should be made between those aspects of decisions that deal with conduct allegations, where full details should be published, and those that deal with impairment allegations, where only limited information should be disclosed.

Partial ectogestation continues to move towards human clinical trials. This article draws upon the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock Report) to provide guidance as to what may need to be considered for the future regulation of this technology. While the Warnock Report dates back to 1984, its significance and legacy continue to influence the current regulation of reproductive practices in the UK. By drawing upon specific elements within the report, many of the decisions and recommendations within it could provide direction for the future regulation of partial ectogestation. The role of the public, the social and political context at the time of the Warnock report, the determination of the status of the embryo, and arguments pitted against in vitro fertilisation (IVF) at the time, are all examined. As a result, this article suggests that the inclusion of the general public in the development and implementation of partial ectogestation prior to another Warnock-style inquiry will increase the success of long-standing regulatory and legislative provisions.

Challenges to the legitimacy of mental capacity over the past 10 years have been spearheaded by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the treaty body for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This challenge has been asserted to have produced a 'paradigm shift'. In this article, we examine why that interpretation has had such limited traction in the legal policy arena, and whether it should have traction. We also analyse whether the Committee has subtly but importantly shifted its position. We then develop an argument that the true goal, compatible with the CRPD, is the satisfactory determination of whether a person has or lacks mental capacity to make or take a relevant decision. Our article contextualises multi-disciplinary, research-informed guidelines designed as a contribution to satisfactory determination. While our article is based upon the position in England and Wales, we suggest that our conclusions are of wider application.