Posthumous Medical Confidentiality
Kartina A. Choong, Jeanne Pia Mifsud Bonnici
Abstract
Kartina A. Choong, Jeanne Pia Mifsud Bonnici
Abstract
This paper reflects on the balancing of public interests that needs to be undertaken under English law when dealing with posthumous medical confidentiality. Until 2007, doctors were bound only by professional codes of ethics to maintain confidentiality after their patients’ death. In 2008, the High Court stated that it is arguable that confidentiality applies in the post-mortem context. This, it claimed, is in the public interest. The court then followed the ecthr in using the same basis – public interest – to accept that there may be exceptions to this duty. This paper considers different situations where multiple interests come together for and against the posthumous disclosure of medical information. This examination suggests that there is considerable uncertainty caused by using one notion of public interest to justify confidentiality, and another to make the case for disclosure. It calls for the legislator to intervene to help resolve the conundrum.
OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This paper reflects on the balancing of public interests that needs to be undertaken under English law when dealing with posthumous medical confidentiality. Until 2007, doctors were bound only by professional codes of ethics to maintain confidentiality after their patients’ death. In 2008, the High Court stated that it is arguable that confidentiality applies in the post-mortem context. This, it claimed, is in the public interest. The court then followed the ecthr in using the same basis – public interest – to accept that there may be exceptions to this duty. This paper considers different situations where multiple interests come together for and against the posthumous disclosure of medical information. This examination suggests that there is considerable uncertainty caused by using one notion of public interest to justify confidentiality, and another to make the case for disclosure. It calls for the legislator to intervene to help resolve the conundrum.
Key concepts: Confidentiality, Legislator, Public interest, Duty, Context (archaeology), Political science, Law, Medical information