Grey Areas

Few would dispute that a regulator should discipline registrants who engage in overtly racist behaviour. However, beyond overt acts, racism also includes unconscious bias, micro-aggressions, and disparate outcomes for patients/clients. In addition, registrants themselves experience racism from their colleagues and clients. What is the role of a professional regulator in addressing this?

Technology often brings unanticipated consequences. AI is no exception. A recent article called Synthetic Grievances: AI-Generated Bar Complaints and the Chilling of Criminal Defense by American law professor Ashley Krenelka Chase illustrates the point. While the paper has a narrow focus (complaints against criminal defence lawyers), it points to a potentially much larger issue.

Due to some past concerns, the UK regulator for nurses and midwives, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), has done significant work on “safeguarding”. This work is closely scrutinized by an Independent Oversight Group.

Imposing disciplinary sanctions may be one of the more challenging activities for regulators. Discipline panels and the courts have developed a nuanced approach that has three main components:

Articulating the public interest served by regulators of professions has always been a challenge. An article by a sociology professor explains that part of the reason for this difficulty is that the concept has evolved over time and, to some extent, place. See: Adams, T. L. (2016). Professional Self-Regulation and the Public Interest in Canada. Professions and Professionalism, 6(3).

A hospital in Australia recently expressed concern that it was not notified that a physician was under investigation by their regulator for conducting unnecessary gynaecological surgeries. The Executive Director of the hospital said that the lack of warning placed the public at risk. Ironically, the law in Australia was recently amended, not without some controversy, to permit the Australian Health