Search

In New Zealand, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 provides diversion for persons with an intellectual disability who have been charged with, or convicted of, a criminal offence. This unique Act moves the responsibility for such "care recipients" from the criminal justice system to a disability sector that values a social model of disability and philosophies of autonomy, choice and normalisation. This research identified dilemmas faced by care managers legally responsible for care recipients. Care managers experienced: tension between imperatives of risk management, rehabilitation and human rights; role ambiguity between"custodian" or "therapist"; philosophical incongruity within their services; and ethical dilemmas over decisions to lengthen care orders. The changing care recipient population has intensified these dilemmas: services must now adapt to the needs of young, street-wise people with alcohol and drug problems and histories of criminal behaviour. The article makes recommendations about how these dilemmas can be addressed. (Contains 14 notes.)

Theories of rehabilitation have long been articulated in health and criminal justice contexts, driving rehabilitation practices in each area. In this article, several prominent theories are described to illustrate how their core assumptions aim to facilitate recovery and reduce relapse or reoffending. Professional disciplinary bodies are also often compelled by law or regulation to attend to practitioners' rehabilitation after professional misconduct, with similar aims to restore the practitioner to safe practice. Yet, no rehabilitation theory has been articulated in this context despite professional rehabilitation being distinct from other settings. We propose that the current absence of a coherent theory is problematic, leaving professional disciplinary bodies to 'borrow' assumptions from elsewhere. Since rehabilitation penalties are frequently made by professional disciplinary bodies, we review several theories from health and justice contexts and highlight elements that may be useful in developing professional misconduct rehabilitation theory. This includes proposing methodological approaches for empirical research to progress this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misinformation has challenged the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination around the world. In 2021, professional bodies for several regulated occupations (including doctors and lawyers) initiated investigations into the conduct of members who engaged in vaccine misinformation, including on social media. This commentary discusses key controversies surrounding this novel disciplinary issue, with the focus on the legal profession in New Zealand and Australia. We consider the difficulties of defining "vaccine misinformation", differentiating between public and private social media use, giving proper scope to rights of free speech, and challenges in identifying financial conflicts of interest and unethical client solicitation practices (eg, profiting from spreading vaccine misinformation). The chilling effect upon freedom of expression when lawyers are disciplined for their social media posts that are deemed unscientific is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the rates and types of criminal convictions encountered by New Zealand's Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) over a 15-year period. Criminal convictions appeared in 24% (n = 101) of cases, with male practitioners (p < 0.01) and pharmacists (p < 0.05) being significantly over-represented. The most frequent types of convictions included crimes against rights of property (33.6%), sexual/morality/decency crimes (21.9%) and misuse of drugs (8.4%). Criminal behaviour settings were evenly split between personal and professional life for medical practitioners (56.5% professional life) and nurses (56.5% professional life) but disproportionately in professional life (85%) for pharmacists. Criminal conviction cases were significantly more likely to result in registration cancellation (p < 0.001) and practice suspensions (p < 0.05) when compared with non-criminal cases, although fewer fines were ordered (p < 0.001). Profession-specific risk factors, alongside how to rehabilitate members of the subgroup who may later seek to renew their practice are areas for further research, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]