TY - JOUR
T1 - Disclosure 'downunder'
T2 - Misadventures in Australian genetic privacy law
AU - Bonython, Wendy
AU - Arnold, Bruce
PY - 2014/3/1
Y1 - 2014/3/1
N2 - Along with many jurisdictions, Australia is struggling with the unique issues raised by genetic information in the context of privacy laws and medical ethics. Although the consequences of disclosure of most private information are generally confined to individuals, disclosure of genetic information has far-reaching consequences, with a credible argument that genetic relatives have a right to know about potential medical conditions. In 2006, the Privacy Act was amended to permit disclosure of an individual's genetic information, without their consent, to genetic relatives, if it was to avoid or mitigate serious illness. Unfortunately, additional amendments required for operation of the disclosure amendment were overlooked. Public Interest Determinations (PIDs)-delegated legislation issued by the privacy commissioner-have, instead, been used to exempt healthcare providers from provisions which would otherwise make disclosure unlawful. This paper critiques the PIDs using documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act-specifically the impact of both the PIDs and the disclosure amendment on patients and relatives-and confidentiality and the procedural validity of subordinate laws regulating medical privacy.
AB - Along with many jurisdictions, Australia is struggling with the unique issues raised by genetic information in the context of privacy laws and medical ethics. Although the consequences of disclosure of most private information are generally confined to individuals, disclosure of genetic information has far-reaching consequences, with a credible argument that genetic relatives have a right to know about potential medical conditions. In 2006, the Privacy Act was amended to permit disclosure of an individual's genetic information, without their consent, to genetic relatives, if it was to avoid or mitigate serious illness. Unfortunately, additional amendments required for operation of the disclosure amendment were overlooked. Public Interest Determinations (PIDs)-delegated legislation issued by the privacy commissioner-have, instead, been used to exempt healthcare providers from provisions which would otherwise make disclosure unlawful. This paper critiques the PIDs using documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act-specifically the impact of both the PIDs and the disclosure amendment on patients and relatives-and confidentiality and the procedural validity of subordinate laws regulating medical privacy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894236201&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2012-101067
DO - 10.1136/medethics-2012-101067
M3 - Article
C2 - 23475814
AN - SCOPUS:84894236201
SN - 0306-6800
VL - 40
SP - 168
EP - 172
JO - Journal of Medical Ethics
JF - Journal of Medical Ethics
IS - 3
ER -