Embracing the new professionalism: self-regulation, mandatory reporting and their discontents

In response to perceived failures in medical self-regulation in Australia, first in two States (for doctors) and now under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (for all health practitioners), mandatory reporting of peer status or practice that poses risks to patients has been introduced. Yet now, in response to the lobbying of State and federal health ministers by the medical profession, mainly in relation to the impairment provisions, this is to be reviewed. This column argues that claims concerning the negative consequences for practitioners of mandatory reporting are illogical and lack supporting evidence. There is, however, evidence that the medical profession does not consistently act in accordance with its professed positions in the area of physician impairment and departure from accepted clinical standards. The call for a review of mandatory reporting reflects an outdated model of regulation that does not align with increasing calls for a "new professionalism". In its own interests, but primarily in the interests of patients, the medical profession should embrace new attitudes and practices that will at first appear to threaten the privilege of self-regulation, but on proper scrutiny will be seen as necessary to retain it.