IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v29y2021i4p639-660..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Privilege of Information—An Examination of the Defence of Therapeutic Privilege and its Implications for Pregnant Women

Author

Listed:
  • Aoife M. Finnerty

Abstract

Though apparently in existence across common law countries, the defence of ‘therapeutic privilege’ receives scant judicial analysis in case law. The extent of its reach is unclear and its underpinning justification is shaky. Often it forms a throwaway remark or poorly explored caveat when the duty of a physician to disclose information is being examined, rather than receiving any detailed judicial scrutiny in its own right. Furthermore, despite references to it in case law, it is questionable if it has ever successfully been invoked as a defence in either England and Wales or Ireland. This piece examines this lack of clarity and the often-vague references to the existence of therapeutic privilege in both case law and professional guidelines, followed by a consideration of why the defence may be particularly problematic and unjustified in the context of childbirth and the immediate postpartum period. Considering the dangers of therapeutic privilege in pregnancy presents a timely opportunity to examine the issues with the use of the defence in all other healthcare contexts, focusing particularly on its impact on individual patient autonomy. Finally, this piece concludes by contending that therapeutic privilege ought to be abolished, if it truly exists at all.

Suggested Citation

  • Aoife M. Finnerty, 2021. "The Privilege of Information—An Examination of the Defence of Therapeutic Privilege and its Implications for Pregnant Women," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(4), pages 639-660.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:4:p:639-660.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab035
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:4:p:639-660.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.