{"title":"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","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":"31 1","pages":"123 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"123 - 150\"},\"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}","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}
Restoration to practice of health practitioners removed for serious sexual misconduct: evaluating public confidence and assessing risk
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.