Abstract
A recent decision of the Court of Appeal involved the continuing problem of balancing a person’s right to freedom of expression (protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) with the right to private life (contained in Article 8) in the context of medical treatment. This balancing exercise must be carried out without providing ‘trump’ status to one particular right, although information relating to medical privacy rights has been given special protection by the domestic courts. In general, therefore, the courts must weigh the respective interests and claims in the specific case, applying the principles of necessity and proportionality to the facts and deciding whose rights are stronger in where the balance lie; including any balance of convenience when considering interim remedies
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 7 |
| Pages (from-to) | 85-94 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Coventry Law Journal |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Aug 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.This document is the author’s post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.
Keywords
- free speech
- medical law
- practtioners