legal principles in risk communication
DESCRIPTION
Legal Principles in Risk Communication. Legal and Ethical Understanding. Staff handling a health crisis should have knowledge of the relevant laws and ethical considerations pertaining to the crisis. Objective. To introduce the existing sources of law - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Legal Principles in Risk Communication
![Page 2: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Legal and Ethical Understanding
• Staff handling a health crisis should have
knowledge of the relevant laws and ethical
considerations pertaining to the crisis
![Page 3: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Objective
• To introduce the existing sources of law
• To ascertain from a legal perspective whether or not information should be released
• To identify the possible legal implications of disclosure/ non-disclosure
![Page 4: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Sources of Law
• Federal Constitution
• Statutes
• Regulations
• General Orders
• Government directives and circulars
• Common Law
![Page 5: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Government Circulars and Directives
• Peraturan-peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1983– Peraturan 19
• Perintah-perintah Am Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) (Bab D) 1980– Perkara 17– Perkara 4
• Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bil. 1 Tahun 1985= non-disclosure
![Page 6: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Non-disclosure
• Government policy, program or decision on any issue
• Any factual information relating to department
• Explanation of incident or report
BUT
![Page 7: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
• People should have access to information in a democratic society– Allows for expression of constitutionally
protected rights in Art 10 and 5 of the Federal Constitution
• Disclosure in good faith is a valid defense to a criminal action under the Penal Code s93
![Page 8: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Federal Constitution - Article 10
10(1) Subject to clauses(2), (3) and (4) – every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression
Restrictions are imposed in the interest of national security, public order, etc
![Page 9: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
THE CONFLICT
Federal ConstitutionEthical principles
Gag ordersVS
IMPLICATIONS
decision
![Page 10: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Authorised Officer
Communications Officer
PUBLIC
Minister’sapproval
information
![Page 11: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Liabilities of authorised officers
• Subject to statutory duties of non-disclosure– E.g. PCID, Food Act, OSHA, Pesticides Act…
• Breach – offence under the statute, penalty as prescribed under the statute – e.g. fine and /or imprisonment
• + disciplinary action may be taken
![Page 12: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
MINISTER
YES NO
No problemcomply non-compliance
- disclosure
No problem Disciplinary action
Communications officer
![Page 13: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Further legal implications
• Negligence
• Breach of Confidentiality
• Defamation
• Public Nuisance
![Page 14: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Negligence
• Liability may exist either for disclosure or failure to disclose depending on circumstances
• Need to prove three elements– Duty of care– Breach of standard of care– Damage/causation
![Page 15: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Breach of Confidentiality
• Both legally and ethically wrong
• Protects special relationships of trust – e.g. between health care providers and patients
• Consider the context in which the information was given/ received –
![Page 16: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Breach of Confidentiality - exceptions
• Sharing information with other health care providers– For effective management of crisis information
• If required by law
• In public interest – to prevent a greater danger to the public at large
![Page 17: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Defamation
• Publication oral or written which may tarnish a person’s reputation
• Defences – justification– qualified privilege (public interest)
![Page 18: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Public Nuisance
• If disclosure/non-disclosure results in injury to a class of persons in a particular area the government as protector of public health and safety may be liable
• An offence under section 268 of the Penal Code
![Page 19: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
VICARIOUSLIABILITY
-government liable
negligence defamation
publicnuisance
Breach ofconfidentiality
![Page 20: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Case Studies
Nipah outbreak Enterovirus
Hand foot & mouth disease
Haze
![Page 21: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Nipah outbreak
• WHO should have released information?– Refer to government circulars –
• Should ANY information have been released if information was lacking/insufficient?– Negligence? If info released was wrong/info
withheld?
![Page 22: Legal Principles in Risk Communication](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568145ae550346895db2a9e4/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Nipah outbreak
• Vaccination - effective?– To state effective – negligence?
• Discovery of actual virus – nipah not JE– What information to release? Is failure to
release negligent?• General public
• Vaccinated group