| Abstract: | Much about what used to be termed "disciplinary" investigations and hearings is being revisited in the modern era. Therapeutic jurisprudence enables informed and sensitive awareness to potentially therapeutic and counter-therapeutic effects of both investigations and hearings conducted by medical regulatory authorities. This article analyses key aspects of authorities' processes from the perspective of notifiers/complainants and practitioners. Using developments at the Victorian Medical Practitioners Board as a base, it addresses issues of both investigative procedures and decision-making at formal and informal hearings, as well as the ramifications of re-hearings for the integrity of peer review informed regulation. It argues that where reclamation of practitioners is possible (namely where impropriety is not of the most serious order), there is much that is constructive about a focus upon enhancement of performance and competence levels, rather than the traditional preoccupation with whether registered status needs to be affected as a result of practitioner conduct. |
