Balancing the Doctors’ Right to Respect for Business Reputation with the Public’s Right to Freedom of Expression (Based on the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights)

  • I. O. Bogomazova
Keywords: business reputation of a doctor, dissemination of information, European Court of Human Rights.

Abstract

The era of information technology and universal access to information leaves its mark on all public relations. Thanks to the Internet, information can be disseminated almost indefinitely with minimal time. This state of affairs has both positive and negative sides. Undoubtedly, in this case, the right of individuals to information will be fully guaranteed, because it can be freely disseminated and received. On the other hand, it should be remembered that this right, like all others, has its limits. Thus, in accordance with the Civil Code of Ukraine of 2003 (hereinafter - the CCU of 2003), in exercising their rights a person is obliged to refrain from actions that could, in particular, violate the rights of others, as well as adhere to moral principles of society (h 2, 4, Article 13) [14]. Part 3 of the same article states that the actions of a person committed with intent to cause harm to another person, as well as abuse of rights in other forms are not allowed. Therefore, the proper exercise of rights is possible only if a balance is reached between the rights of the holder of these rights and other entities whose rights and legitimate interests may be affected by such exercise. This study focuses primarily on the analysis of a person's right to express views in terms of dissemination of critical information about the doctor and, in contrast, the latter's right to protection from false information.

Very often there are cases when a person's professional qualities are evaluated in accordance with "public opinion", which spreads rapidly in social networks, forums and other web platforms for communication. There are times when such information is objective and can prevent the negative experience of the person taking it into account. However, very often public opinion is formed on the basis of unfounded allegations based on the personal hostility of the person who disseminates them, with the person against whom they are directed.

At present, the problem of protecting doctors' business reputation is acute. Of course, it is not least the success of a doctor in professional circles and the "climate" in the "doctor-patient" relationship that depends on it. On the other hand, the objective coverage of health care, for example in the media (hereinafter referred to as the media), is in the public interest, in particular in the context of the right to information and the right to adequate health care.

Thus, the purpose of the article is to clarify the limits of the right to freedom of expression in view of the right to protection of a doctor's business reputation according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

First of all, it is necessary to define the concept of business reputation of a doctor. It should be noted that there is no corresponding generalized normative definition. Thus, the acts governing certain legal relations interpret this concept in such a way that it can be applied only to these specific relations [4; 6].

Regarding the normative regulation of this concept in civil law, it should be noted that the national legislator separates the concept of business reputation from honor and dignity. Apparently, this is due to the fact that the first two qualities are inherent only in individuals, in contrast to the latter, which can characterize both individuals and legal entities. In contrast to the current, the Central Committee of the USSR in 1963 contained all these concepts in one article and did not distinguish between the subjects to whom they may belong [15]. Also in practice, these concepts were inseparable from each other. According to the current legislation, it is not necessary to talk about the protection of honor and dignity, in case of violation of the right of a person only to respect for his business reputation [3, p. 34].

The CCU of 2003 classifies business reputation as personal non-property goods (Article 201) and gives it the status of an independent object of judicial protection (Part 2 of Article 299).

The Supreme Court of Ukraine distinguishes between the business reputation of an individual and the business reputation of legal entities, natural persons-entrepreneurs, as well as lawyers, notaries, etc. [5]. The business reputation of an individual should be understood as the acquired public assessment of his business and professional qualities in the performance of his labor, official, public or other duties. Business reputation of a legal entity, natural person-entrepreneur, lawyers, notaries, etc. - is an assessment of their entrepreneurial, social, professional or other activities as participants in public relations. It should be noted that a doctor may act as an individual engaged in professional activities under an employment contract or as a business entity.

So, on the one hand, business reputation depends on the behavior of its bearer, his attitude to professional duties [13, p. 46]. In particular, it is important for a doctor to establish professional relationships with patients, which should be based on mutual trust and be ethical. In this context, it should be noted that in Ukraine there is a Code of Ethics for Physicians, approved by the decision of the Ukrainian Medical Council [1]. This code does not have the force of a legislative act, but contains only ethical norms on the relationship between doctor and society, doctor and patient, collegiality of doctors, research involving the patient, the latest medical technologies, information and respect for the medical profession.

On the other hand, a doctor's business reputation may also be affected by others, namely, his patients and colleagues. Yes, the careless subjective statement of the patient on social networks can cast a shadow on the competence of the doctor, so the importance of ethical aspects of the relationship between these two participants is difficult to overestimate. As for other doctors, according to the Code of Ethics, it is forbidden to publicly question or discredit the professional qualifications of another doctor. Professional remarks must be substantiated and non-offensive. They need to be discussed in a personal conversation before being made public.

After analyzing the above legislation, as well as the decision of the ECtHR, we can draw the following conclusions.

  1. Dissemination of negative information, in particular, about the doctor is one of the manifestations of freedom of expression. However, it is important to remember that such negative information must be true; otherwise, this activity will not comply with the law.
  2. In the event of a restriction on a person's right to freedom of expression, the ECtHR proposes that the following factors be taken into account: whether such a restriction was based on law, whether it pursued one or more legitimate aims and was necessary in a democratic society.
  3. Of course, the dissemination of negative information about a doctor affects his business reputation, but in order to achieve a fair balance between competing interests in this area (provided that such information was true) the public interest will prevail, because the dissemination of information about health care is of particular interest to the public.
  4. A fair balance in these relations will also provide such circumstances as: good faith and ethical behavior of those who publish negative information, the way of presenting the material, the validity of the information disseminated, the real ability of the doctor to respond to these allegations.

References

Етичний кодекс лікаря, затверджений рішенням Української медичної ради (протокол від 27.01.2006 № 18). URL: https://mcu.org.ua/nadlezhashhaya-medicinskaya-praktika/eticheskij-kodeks-vracha-ukrainy?lang=uk (Etychnyy kodeks likarya, zatverdzhenyy rishennyam Ukrayins'koyi medychnoyi rady).

Конвенція про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод 04.11.1950. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text (04.11.1950. Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms).

Кохановська О. В. Проблеми захисту честі, гідності й ділової репутації особи в Цивільному кодексі України. Вісник Верховного Суду України. 2006. № 6. С. 30–35. URL: https://www.viaduk.com/clients/vs.nsf/0/C31366E8AB1A22C6C2257045004D0477?OpenDocument&Co llapseView&RestrictToCategory=C31366E8AB1A22C6C2257045004D0477&Count=500& (Kokhanovs'ka O. V. Problemy zakhystu chesti, hidnosti y dilovoyi reputatsiyi osoby v Tsyvil'nomu kodeksi Ukrayiny. Visnyk Verkhovnoho sudu Ukrayiny. 2006. № 6. S. 30–35).

Про банки і банківську діяльність : Закон України від 07.12.2000 № 2121-ІІІ. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2121-14#Text (Pro banky i bankivs'ku diyal'nist' : Zakon Ukrayiny vid 07.12.2000 № 2121-III).

Про судову практику у справах про захист гідності та честі фізичної особи, а також ділової репутації фізичної та юридичної особи : Постанова Пленуму Верховного Суду України від 27.02.2009 № 1. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v_001700-09#Text (Pro sudovu praktyku u spravakh pro zakhyst hidnosti ta chesti fizychnoyi osoby, a takozh dilovoyi reputatsiyi fizychnoyi ta yurydychnoyi osoby : Postanova Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrayiny vid 27.02.2009 № 1).

Про фінансові послуги та державне регулювання ринків фінансових послуг : Закон України від 12.07.2001 № 2664-ІІІ. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2664-14#Text (Pro finansovi posluhy ta derzhavne rehulyuvannya rynkiv finansovykh posluh : Zakon Ukrayiny vid 12.07.2001 № 2664-III).

Рішення ЄСПЛ у справі «Bergens Tidende проти Норвегії» (2000). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58797 (European Court of Human Rights judgment «Bergens Tidende v. Norway»).

Рішення ЄСПЛ у справі «Hoffer and Annen проти Німеччини» (2011). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-102804 (European Court of Human Rights judgment «Hoffer and Annen v. Germany»).

Рішення ЄСПЛ у справі «Sürek проти Туреччини» (№ 1) (1999). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58279 (European Court of Human Rights judgment «Sürek v. Turkey»).

Сенюта І. Я. Правові позиції Європейського суду з прав людини у сфері охорони здоров'я. Харків: Фактор, 2020. 192 с. (Senyuta I. Y. Pravovi pozytsiyi Yevropeys'koho sudu z prav lyudyny u sferi okhorony zdorov'ya. Kharkiv: Faktor, 2020. 192 s.).

Таламанчук К. Як захистити власну ділову репутацію від язиків незадоволених пацієнтів та конкурентів? URL: https://zib.com.ua/ua/137134-yak_zahistiti_vlasnu_dilovu_reputaciyu_vid_yazikiv_nevdovole.html (Talamanchuk K. Yak zakhystyty vlasnu dilovu reputatsiyu vid yazykiv nezadovolenykh patsiyentiv ta konkurentiv?).

Терешко Х. Я. Інформація як об’єкт суспільних відносин у сфері медичного обслуговування : автореф. дис. ... канд. юридичних наук: 12.00.03. Київ, 2019. 22 с. (Tereshko K. Y. Informatsiya yak ob''yekt suspil'nykh vidnosyn u sferi medychnoho obsluhovuvannya : avtoref. dys. ... kand. yurydychnykh nauk: 12.00.03. Kyiv, 2019. 22 s.).

Хоббі Ю. Ділова репутація лікаря: правовий аспект. Правовий часопис Донбасу. 2019. № 4 (69). С. 44–49 (Khobbi YU. Dilova reputatsiya likarya: pravovyy aspekt. Pravovyy chasopys Donbasu. 2019. № 4 (69). S. 44–49).

Цивільний кодекс України : Закон України від 16.01.2003 № 435-IV. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15/conv#n81 (Tsyvil'nyy kodeks Ukrayiny : Zakon Ukrayiny vid 16.01.2003 № 435-IV).

Цивільний кодекс УРСР : Закон УРСР від 18.07.1963 № 1540-VI. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1540-06#Text (Tsyvil'nyy kodeks URSR : Zakon URSR vid 18.07.1963 № 1540-VI).

Published
2020-09-29
How to Cite
Bogomazova , I. O. (2020). Balancing the Doctors’ Right to Respect for Business Reputation with the Public’s Right to Freedom of Expression (Based on the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights). Medicne Pravo, (2(26), 24-33. https://doi.org/10.25040/medicallaw2020.02.024
Section
Articles