Regulation of Medical Professionals and National Security: Lessons from Three Case Studies
Faunce T McKenna M, Rayner J and Hawes J. Regulation of Medical Professionals and national Security: Lessons From Three Case Studies (2016) 23 (3) JLM 544-556
13 Pages Posted: 28 Oct 2018
Date Written: 2016
In recent times, Australia’s national security concerns have had controversial impacts on regulation of Australian medical practitioners in areas related to immigration detention. This column explores three recent case studies relevant to this issue. The first involves the enactment of the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (Cth), which has a significant impact on the regulation of medical professionals who work with people in immigration detention. The second involves the decision of the High Court of Australia in Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  HCA 1 that an amendment to Australian federal legislation justified sending children back to immigration detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. This legislation was previously heavily criticised by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. As a response to that decision, application of the principle of loyalty to the relief of individual patient suffering has guided the decision-making of health professionals who have refused to discharge children from hospitals if that means returning them to offshore immigration detention centres. This legislation was previously heavily criticised by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. The third case study concerns the deregistration of Tareq Kamleh, an Australian doctor of German-Palestinian heritage who came to public attention on ANZAC Day 2015 with his appearance online in a propaganda video for the Islamic State terrorist organisation al-Dawla al-Islamyia fil Iraq wa'al Sham, also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Daesh. Dr Tareq Kamleh, an Australian, travelled to Syria and joined the Islamic State (IS) a terrorist organisation whose targeted killing of innocent civilians typifies the terror that has contributed to the influx of refugees into Australian and other immigration detention centres. Australia’s Our professional regulatory system should presumptively respect professional virtues, such as loyalty to the relief of individual patient suffering, when dealing with doctors (whether in Australia or ISIS-occupied Syria or Australia) working under regimes whose principles appear inconsistent with those of ethics and human rights.
Note: This article was first published by Thomson Reuters in the Journal of Law and Medicine and should be cited as Faunce T McKenna M, Rayner J and Hawes J, Regulation of Medical Professionals and National Security: Lessons from Three Case Studies, 2016, 23, JLM, 544.
This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039.
Keywords: Immigration Detention, Refugee Policy, Border Security, Medical Professional Ethics, Terrorism
JEL Classification: I18, K32
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation