Medical Law Review最新文献

This article is an examination of the extent to which traditional medical knowledge in China can be protected by intellectual property laws. The analysis begins by providing a global picture with regard to the historic origin of intellectual property, exploring the reasons why China does not have indigenous counterparts to the western system of intellectual property rights protecting its traditional knowledge (including traditional medical knowledge) and stating the problems of transplanting western intellectual property standards in China. A discussion follows on how China, under foreign pressure, has made efforts to comply with the changing standards mandated by various international, regional, and bilateral arrangements related to intellectual property, with examples of the development of China's patent law. China's approach towards the protection of traditional medical knowledge in various international fora related to intellectual property is explored. Finally, there is a specific examination of the compatibilities between the western system of intellectual property rights and traditional medical knowledge in China, at the national and community levels. This article argues that the system of intellectual property rights does not easily fit with China's traditional medical knowledge because of China's unique cultural traits, distinctive historical context and wide ethnic, religious, and local community diversity.

Medicine is one of the biggest use cases for emerging information technologies. Data processing brings huge advantages but forces lawmakers and practitioners to balance between privacy, autonomy, accessibility, and functionality. ICT-connected Implantable Medical Devices plant themselves firmly between traditional medical equipment and software that processes health-related personal data, and these implants face many data management challenges. It is essential that healthcare providers and others can identify and understand the legal grounds they rely on to process data. The European Union is currently updating its framework, and the special provisions in the GDPR, the current ePrivacy Directive, and the coming ePrivacy Regulation all provide enhanced thresholds for processing data. This article provides an overview and explanation of the applicability of the rules and the legal grounds for processing data. We find that only a cumulative application of the GDPR and the ePrivacy rules ensure adequate protection of this data and present the legal grounds for processing in these cases. We discuss the challenges in obtaining and maintaining valid consent and necessity as a legal ground for processing and offer use case-specific discussions of the role of consent long-term and the lack of an adequate 'vital interest' exception in the ePrivacy rules.

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.