The UK Domestic Gas Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act: Re‐regulating the Retail Energy Market

The UK retail energy market has witnessed multiple regulatory interventions since its liberalisation almost two decades ago. Such interventions reached their peak with the enactment of the UK Domestic Gas Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act in July 2018. The Act puts in place a requirement on the independent regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), to set an absolute price cap on poor value tariffs. As such, it signals a repudiation of the overarching paradigm of consumer empowerment that has informed regulatory remedies to date. Rather than advocating for a different paradigm, this article highlights the difficulties inherent in reconciling price caps – both practically and conceptually – with the competitive process and consumer empowerment. It also discussses other instruments, not necessarily exhausted in retail price regulation, that can render affordable energy prices, without sacrificing consumer empowerment.     

Principles,patient welfare and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000

The law surrounding decision-making for adults who lose their capacity varies considerably internationally. In many cases legislation has taken a protective and consequently restrictive role for adults with incapacity and often the issue of capacity assessment within the appropriate legal framework is circumvented. In Scotland, the introduction of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 modernised that nation's approach to incapable adults. This article describes briefly the pre-2000 Act situation in Scotland, discusses the main provisions of the Act, reviews the use of principles in incapacity legislation in Britain, and discusses issues relating to patient welfare. The use of principles to extend patient autonomy into incapacity is demonstrated and compared with the English and Welsh Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) through a discussion of how the principles in each of those Acts promotes particular ideologies of decision making. Finally, the article examines recent Scottish case law relating to the 2000 Act and discusses how the courts are currently interpreting the principles of the Act.     

Constitutional Principle,the Rule of Law and Political Reality: The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is the cornerstone of UK legislation designed to accomplish the legal dimension of Brexit. It brings the entire acquis of EU law into UK law in order to avoid regulatory black holes that would otherwise occur. The Act embodies a twofold legislative strategy: EU law brought into UK law thereby is to be made fit for purpose by exit day, with necessary changes being made by statutory instrument; Parliament can then decide at greater leisure thereafter whether it wishes to retain, amend or repeal this legislation. The burden placed on Parliament is unprecedented, all the more so given the exigencies of time in which the changes are to be made. This article explicates the principal provisions of the 2018 Act, and the concerns as to constitutional principle and the rule of law raised by the legislation. The tensions in the drafting process are made apparent, and uncertainties in the resulting text are revealed.     

Culling bad apples, blowing whistles and the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (NZ)

The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (NZ) became New Zealand law on 18 September 2003. This article looks at the background to the Act and reasons for resistance to it. It discusses the record so far on the medical profession's self-regulation of fitness-to-practise issues and the legal duties of practitioners who have reason to believe a colleague is putting patients at risk. It looks at some of the changes the Act brings, compares the experience of English and American medico-legal reforms, where applicable, and attempts to draw some conclusions on the chances for successful change.     

Screening for suicide risk factors in prison inmates: Evaluating the efficiency of the Depression,Hopelessness and Suicide Screening Form (DHS)

The Depression, Hopelessness and Suicide Screening Form (DHS; Mills & Kroner, 2002 ) is a recently developed self‐report instrument to aid in screening inmates in the titled areas. Research has shown the DHS to have good internal consistency, factor structure and construct validity. The present study extends the previous validation research by comparing the disclosure of suicide risk factors on the DHS with both interview‐based and file review information. In addition, the DHS scores were used to predict psychological distress. The results indicate that despite the paper‐and‐pencil self‐report approach of the DHS it is comparably efficient in gathering suicide risk factors to other methods. In addition, the predictive accuracy of the DHS in identifying inmates experiencing psychological distress was confirmed. The current study has implications for the method of collection of suicide screening information. The discussion centres on the potential of self‐report in screening for suicide and self‐harm indicators in inmate populations.     

Call 911: psychiatry and the new Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) regulations

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), enacted in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, aims to prevent "patient dumping" by requiring hospitals to screen and stabilize patients who come to an emergency room seeking medical attention. For many reasons, recovery under EMTALA is rare, especially when psychiatric treatment is called for. New regulations of EMTALA went into effect on November 10, 2003. These new regulations helpfully clarify the applicability of EMTALA. However, the bias against recovery in cases involving psychiatric emergencies is likely to remain.     

The Data Protection (Amendment) Act, 2003: the Data Protection Directive and its implications for medical research in Ireland

Directive 95/46/EC on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data has been transposed into national law and is now the Data Protection (Amendment) Act, 2003. The Directive and the transposing Act provide for new obligations to those processing data. The new obligation of primary concern is the necessity to obtain consent prior to the processing of data (Article 7, Directive 95/46/EC). This has caused much concern especially in relation to 'secondary data' or 'archived data'. There exist, what seem to be in the minds of the medical research community, two competing interests: (i) that of the need to obtain consent prior to processing data and (ii) the need to protect and foster medical research. At the same time as the introduction of the Act, other prior legislation, i.e. the Freedom of Information Act, 1997-2003, has encouraged candour within the doctor-patient relationship and the High Court in Ireland, in the case of Geoghegan v. Harris, has promulgated the 'reasonable-patient test' as being the correct law in relation to the disclosure of risks to patients. The court stated that doctors have a duty to disclose all material risks to patients. The case demonstrates an example of a move toward a more open medical relationship. An example of this rationale was also recently seen in the United Kingdom in the House of Lords decision in Chester v. Afshar. Within the medical research community in Ireland, the need to respect the autonomy of patients and research participants by providing information to such parties has also been observed (Sheikh A. A., 2000 and Irish Council for Bioethics, 2005). Disquiet has been expressed in Ireland and other jurisdictions by the medical research communities in relation to the exact working and meaning of the Directive and therefore the transposing Acts (Strobl et al). This may be due to the fact that, as observed by Beyleveld "The Directive makes no specific mention of medical research and, consequently, it contains no provisions for medical research as an explicitly delineated category." (Beyleveld D., 2004) This paper examines the Irish Act and discusses whether the concerns expressed are well-founded and if the Act is open to interpretation such that it would not hamper medical research and public health work.