The
awful events of last week have generated a considerable amount of comment about
the extent to which an employer is, to ought to be, aware of the mental health of key employees.
Does
data protection legislation prevent the disclosure of critical information which, if
withheld from an employer, permit the employee to carry out acts that
potentially have heinous consequences?
In
the UK, certainly not. Data controllers can always protect the vital interests
of other people in cases where it would be unreasonable to expect the data
subject to consent to the disclosure of sensitive personal data, or when the
consent of a data subject has been unreasonably withheld.
The
debate ought to focus less on any perceived failings of data protection
legislation and more on the obligations of confidence that doctors (and others)
have with those who are being counseled.
This
is why I’m looking forward to contributions to this debate from members of BMA’s
Medical Ethics Committee. The Committee debates
ethical issues on the relationship between the medical profession, the public
and the state. It also liaises with the General Medical Council on all matters
of ethics affecting medical practice. Other members of the BMA's secretariat produce detailed guidance and
discussion papers on a wide range of medico-ethical issues, and offers individual
ethical advice to BMA members over the phone or by email.
The BMA's confidentiality and disclosure health information tool kit is a great start to those who are
keen to understand the current guidelines. On the issue of disclosing medial
data in the public interest, for example, it says: “Health professionals should be aware
that they risk criticism, and even legal liability, if they fail to take action
to avoid serious harm. Advisory bodies, such as the BMA, cannot tell health
professionals whether or not to disclose information in a particular case, but
can provide general guidance about the categories of cases in which decisions
to disclose may be justifiable (see below). Guidance should be sought from
their Caldicott guardian, professional body or defence body where there is any
doubt as to whether disclosure should take place in the public interest.”
I’m looking forward to more specific
guidance from the BMA, in light of recent events. Many patients are unlikely to
be fully forthcoming to medical professionals if they feel that the effect of
their most candid confessions would be to curtail the careers they have fought
so hard to forge.
Somehow, the BMA is going to have to
reassure the public that the confidentiality obligations which currently exist
between doctor and patent and are sufficiently strong to encourage patients to
continue to open their souls to their doctors. At the same time, doctors may
well need additional assurance that they will not be held legally liable when it
is necessary to disclose information that really ought to be made more widely
available.
Source:
http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/confidentiality-tool-kit
.
Posts
