Naming, blaming and shaming?

Abstract

Few doctors at the centre of complaints or disciplinary proceedings wish to be publicly named. Publication of a doctor's name can adversely affect his or her reputation, patients, and family members, even if the allegation is ultimately not upheld. Yet, there is a strong public interest in freedom of speech and transparency of complaints and disciplinary processes. In determining whether to grant name suppression, complaints agencies and disciplinary tribunals are required to balance competing public and private interests. In New Zealand, the Health and Disability Commissioner has responsibility for investigating complaints about the quality of medical care. The Commissioner's current practice is not to publicly name doctors under investigation, or even those who are found to have breached a patient's rights. This approach fits well the non-punitive, rehabilitative focus of New Zealand's medical regulatory system. In the rare cases where a matter reaches the threshold for disciplinary action, the balance tips in favour of disclosure.