B. PUBLIC INTEREST EXCEPTION
An exception to the common law duty of confidentiality permits disclosure of information where to do so is in the public interest. There have been no reported New Zealand or Australian cases in which disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives has been considered. While the public interest exception is notable for its flexibility, existing case law suggests that it is very unlikely the exception would be expanded in this instance.
First, disclosure must be confined to ‘exceptional circumstances’, where ‘another’s life is immediately endangered and urgent action is required’, or where there is a ‘real risk of consequent danger to the public.’ Second, in these cases the courts have emphasised that disclosure should be to a responsible authority. Genetic conditions will rarely, if ever, present an immediately life-threatening risk, and such disclosure would ultimately be made to a family member rather than a responsible authority. That said, there is nothing in the cases which explicitly precludes such a factual scenario being considered by the courts and cases considering the issue in the context of a possible doctor’s duty to warn have come before the courts in overseas jurisdictions.
C. DUTY TO WARN OF GENETIC RISK …show more content…
It is open to debate whether a duty to warn exists in New Zealand law at all, and whether there is a duty to warn in the context of genetic information has not yet been argued before a New Zealand court. US courts, however, considered the issue in Pate v Threlkel and Safer v Pack. In both cases, the courts held that there was a duty to warn but took different positions on how that duty can be
An exception to the common law duty of confidentiality permits disclosure of information where to do so is in the public interest. There have been no reported New Zealand or Australian cases in which disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives has been considered. While the public interest exception is notable for its flexibility, existing case law suggests that it is very unlikely the exception would be expanded in this instance.
First, disclosure must be confined to ‘exceptional circumstances’, where ‘another’s life is immediately endangered and urgent action is required’, or where there is a ‘real risk of consequent danger to the public.’ Second, in these cases the courts have emphasised that disclosure should be to a responsible authority. Genetic conditions will rarely, if ever, present an immediately life-threatening risk, and such disclosure would ultimately be made to a family member rather than a responsible authority. That said, there is nothing in the cases which explicitly precludes such a factual scenario being considered by the courts and cases considering the issue in the context of a possible doctor’s duty to warn have come before the courts in overseas jurisdictions.
C. DUTY TO WARN OF GENETIC RISK …show more content…
It is open to debate whether a duty to warn exists in New Zealand law at all, and whether there is a duty to warn in the context of genetic information has not yet been argued before a New Zealand court. US courts, however, considered the issue in Pate v Threlkel and Safer v Pack. In both cases, the courts held that there was a duty to warn but took different positions on how that duty can be