2014European Journal of Comparative Law and GovernanceOpen access

Posthumous Medical Confidentiality

Kartina A. Choong, Jeanne Pia Mifsud Bonnici

Open full text 5 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Confidentiality, Legislator, Public interest, Duty, Context (archaeology), Political science, Law, Medical information

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Posthumous Medical Confidentiality — Research Paper | ScholarLens