Complaints had been made against certain dentists. Their patients object that they had not been asked about disclosure of their medical records to the tribunals hearing the fitness to practice cases.
Held: The GDC was under no obligation to seek such consent. The obligations to keep medical records confidential was strong, but the intened disclosure was in pursuance of legitimate objectives specified in article 8(2) as being ‘in the interests of . . public safety’, ‘for the protection of health and morals’ and ‘for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ Moreover it was pursuant to law in applying the 1984 Act, and was proportionate because of the high respect given to the duties by the Council and its members.
Sales J
[2011] EWHC 3011 (Admin), [2011] WLR(D) 332
WLRD
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Dentists Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – MS v Sweden ECHR 27-Aug-1997
Hudoc Sweden – communication, without the patient’s consent, of personal and confidential medical data by one public authority to another and lack of possibility for patient, prior to the measure, to challenge it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions, Intellectual Property, Human Rights, Information
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.448404
