Public bodies report that they cannot always share the data they need to share and, as a result, miss out on opportunities to provide better services to citizens. At the same time, it is accepted that there is a need to ensure that the security of data and privacy of individuals are not put at risk. This consultation asks: is there a problem with the law - does the law itself erect barriers that unduly restrict data sharing between public bodies? Is the law is too complex and hard to understand - has a lack of clarity in the law led public bodies to develop cultures that prevent lawful data sharing? Is data sharing just too difficult? Is there is a simply a gap in education, guidance and advice? This project aims to establish whether these perceived obstacles are embedded in practice or culture, or whether they are to do with the substance of the law or how it is written.

Public bodies report that they cannot always share the data they need to share and, as a result, miss out on opportunities to provide better services to citizens. At the same time, the protection of privacy is fundamental to any data sharing regime. The law surrounding data sharing is complex. Powers to share data are scattered across a very large number of statutes and may be set out expressly or implied. In addition, there are common law powers. In this scoping project the Law Commission considered the following questions: are there hurdles to effective data sharing between public bodies (including private bodies engaged in public service delivery)?; Are those hurdles inappropriate?; How far do problems in data sharing stem from the law?; How far do problems in data sharing stem from other causes, such as a lack of training or guidance, organisational incentives and disincentives?; Would law reform solve or mitigate the problems? The Commission recommends that a full law reform project should be carried out in order to create a principled and clear legal structure for data sharing, which will meet the needs of society. The scope of the review should extend beyond data sharing between public bodies to the disclosure of information between public bodies and other organisations carrying out public functions.

In order for the information society to realise its full potential, personal data has to be disclosed, used and often shared. This book explores the disclosure and sharing of data within the area of healthcare. Including an overview of how health information is currently managed, the authors argue that with changes in modern society, the idea of personal relationships with a local GP who solely holds and controls your health records is becoming rapidly outdated. The authors aim to encourage and empower patients to make informed choices about sharing their health data. They do this by developing a three-stage theoretical model for change to the roles of the NHS and the individual. The study generates debate to stimulate and inspire new models and policy, and to provoke new visions for the sharing of healthcare data. Such discussion is framed through an exploration of the changing concept of 'privacy' and 'patient control' in healthcare information management. The volume draws on best practices from Europe and the USA and combines these to form a suggested vision for the UK as an early adopter of change. The volume will be essential reading for academics in the field of privacy and data protection, as well as healthcare and informatics professionals across different jurisdictions.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.