Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Freedom of Information Act 2000: should psychiatrists be worried?

  • David Stone
  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Freedom of Information Act 2000: should psychiatrists be worried?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Freedom of Information Act 2000: should psychiatrists be worried?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Freedom of Information Act 2000: should psychiatrists be worried?
      Available formats
      ×
Abstract
Copyright
References
Hide All
Adshead, G. (2005) History is bunk. Invited commentary on Re-evaluating confidentiality. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 11, 123–122.
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2004) The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. London: Stationery Office. http://www.actnow.org.uk/SI3244.pdf
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2005) Guidance on the Application of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. London: Stationery Office. http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/feesguide.htm
Draper, H. & Rogers, W. (2005) Re-evaluating confidentiality: using patient information in teaching and publications. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 11, 115121.
Information Commissioner (2005) Freedom of Information Act Awareness Guidance No. 1. Wilmslow: Information Commissioner's Office. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/AG%201%20personal%20info.pdf
NHS Executive (1997) Report on the Review of Patient-Identifiable Information (Caldicott Report). London: Department of Health.
Shaw, G. B. [1906] (1987) The Doctor's Dilemma. London: Penguin Books.
Tyrer, P. (2005) The ethics of confidentiality in research. Invited commentary on Re-evaluating confidentiality. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 11, 122123.
R. v. Department of Health, ex parte Source Informatics Ltd [2000] LLR 76.
W. v. Edgell [1990] 1 All ER 835.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Advances
  • ISSN: 1355-5146
  • EISSN: 1472-1481
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-advances
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 6 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 9 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 20th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000: should psychiatrists be worried?

  • David Stone
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *