The publication of impaired doctors' identity by Australian and New Zealand tribunals: law, practice, and reform.

Abstract

For doctors with mental health or substance use disorders, publication of their name and sensitive medical history in disciplinary decisions may adversely impact their health and may reinforce barriers to accessing early support and treatment. This article challenges the view that naming impaired doctors or disclosing the intimate details of their medical condition in disciplinary decisions always serves the public interest in open justice. We analysed and compared the approach of Australian and New Zealand health tribunals to granting orders that suppress the name and/or medical history of impaired doctors. This revealed that Australian tribunals are less likely to grant non-publication orders compared to New Zealand, despite shared common law history and similar medical regulatory frameworks. We argue that Australian tribunals could be more circumspect when dealing with sensitive information in published decisions, especially where such information does not directly form a basis for the decision reached. This could occur without compromising public protection or the underlying goals of open justice. Finally, we argue that a greater distinction should be made between those aspects of decisions that deal with conduct allegations, where full details should be published, and those that deal with impairment allegations, where only limited information should be disclosed.