School of Law, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2012 Jan;38(1):31-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.041186. Epub 2011 Jun 27.
The precise nature and scope of healthcare confidentiality has long been the subject of debate. While the obligation of confidentiality is integral to professional ethical codes and is also safeguarded under English law through the equitable remedy of breach of confidence, underpinned by the right to privacy enshrined in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it has never been regarded as absolute. But when can and should personal information be made available for statistical and research purposes and what if the information in question is highly sensitive information, such as that relating to the termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks? This article explores the case of In the Matter of an Appeal to the Information Tribunal under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, concerning the decision of the Department of Health to withhold some statistical data from the publication of its annual abortion statistics. The specific data being withheld concerned the termination for serious fetal handicap under section 1(1)d of the Abortion Act 1967. The paper explores the implications of this case, which relate both to the nature and scope of personal privacy. It suggests that lessons can be drawn from this case about public interest and use of statistical information and also about general policy issues concerning the legal regulation of confidentiality and privacy in the future.
医疗保健保密性的准确性质和范围长期以来一直是争论的主题。虽然保密义务是专业道德规范的组成部分，并且通过 1998 年《人权法案》第 8 条所规定的隐私权这一公平补救措施得到了英国法律的保护，但它从未被视为绝对的。但是，在什么情况下可以并且应该为统计和研究目的提供个人信息，如果所涉及的信息是高度敏感的信息，例如 24 周后终止妊娠的信息，该怎么办？本文探讨了根据 2000 年《信息自由法》第 57 条向信息法庭提出上诉的案件，涉及卫生部决定不公布其年度堕胎统计数据中的某些统计数据。被扣留的具体数据涉及 1967 年《堕胎法案》第 1(1)d 条规定的严重胎儿残疾终止妊娠。本文探讨了这一案例的影响，这些影响既涉及个人隐私的性质和范围，也涉及公共利益和统计信息的使用，以及关于未来保密性和隐私的法律监管的一般政策问题。
