For doctors with mental health or substance use disorders, publication of their name and sensitive medical history in disciplinary decisions may adversely impact their health and may reinforce barriers to accessing early support and treatment. This article challenges the view that naming impaired doctors or disclosing the intimate details of their medical condition in disciplinary decisions always serves the public interest in open justice. We analysed and compared the approach of Australian and New Zealand health tribunals to granting orders that suppress the name and/or medical history of impaired doctors. This revealed that Australian tribunals are less likely to grant non-publication orders compared to New Zealand, despite shared common law history and similar medical regulatory frameworks. We argue that Australian tribunals could be more circumspect when dealing with sensitive information in published decisions, especially where such information does not directly form a basis for the decision reached. This could occur without compromising public protection or the underlying goals of open justice. Finally, we argue that a greater distinction should be made between those aspects of decisions that deal with conduct allegations, where full details should be published, and those that deal with impairment allegations, where only limited information should be disclosed.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚和新西兰法庭公布受损医生身份：法律、实践和改革

对于患有精神健康或药物滥用障碍的医生来说，在纪律处分决定中公布其姓名和敏感病史可能会对他们的健康产生不利影响，并可能加剧获得早期支持和治疗的障碍。本文挑战了这样一种观点，即在纪律处分决定中点名受损医生或披露其医疗状况的私密细节始终符合公开司法的公共利益。我们分析并比较了澳大利亚和新西兰卫生法庭下达隐瞒受损医生姓名和/或病史的命令的方法。这表明，尽管有着共同的普通法历史和类似的医疗监管框架，但与新西兰相比，澳大利亚法庭不太可能发出禁止发表令。我们认为，澳大利亚法庭在处理已公布判决中的敏感信息时可以更加谨慎，特别是在此类信息不直接构成做出判决的基础的情况下。这可能会在不损害公共保护或公开司法的根本目标的情况下发生。最后，我们认为，应该在处理行为指控的决策的那些方面（应公布全部细节）和处理损害指控的决策方面（仅应披露有限的信息）之间做出更大的区分。