Medical Council notification · Written to Good medical practice

Ethics and Ethical Standards for Doctors for Doctors facing a Medical Council investigation, complaint or allegation

The allegation concerns your ethical judgement, behaviour or conduct as a doctor.

Boundaries — a boundaries breach with a patient or a colleague
Dishonesty — a forged document, an altered note, a false claim, or misleading the Council
Prescribing — to yourself, to family, or controlled drugs outside the rules
Records — notes missing, changed after the event, or not what happened
Confidentiality — patient information accessed or shared without authority
Impairment — practising while alcohol, drugs or your health affected you
Conduct outside practice — a conviction or behaviour that reflects on your fitness to practise
Any other — ethical concern or allegation of unethical conduct

Facing an allegation of unethical behaviour or misconduct like these — from the Medical Council, a Professional Conduct Committee or the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal?

Help with a Medical Council investigation, complaint or allegation starts here. This CPD course helps you remediate — and demonstrate the remediation, with a dated certificate for your written response, your portfolio or a Committee or Tribunal direction.

Buy this course — NZ$200 Bulk buy — any five or ten courses

Immediate access · certificate on completion · twelve months' access

2 CPD hours
Self-paced
Written for New Zealand
CPD certificate
Bulk buy: any 5 for NZ$850 · any 10 for NZ$1,400

At a glance

Who it is for: Any doctor facing a Medical Council notification, complaint or allegation, a Professional Conduct Committee investigation or a competence review about ethical judgement, behaviour or conduct — an allegation of unethical behaviour, conduct or action
Authorities covered: The Medical Council of New Zealand, its Professional Conduct Committees and the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal
Length: 10 sections, 58 lessons, 2 CPD hours
Format: Self-paced, online, immediate access, twelve months from purchase
Certificate: Issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses on completion, dated, with the course title and 2 CPD hours
Price: NZ$200 · any 5 for NZ$850 · any 10 for NZ$1,400

Certificate issued by Healthcare Ethics CoursesRemediation courses for regulatory processes.

2CPD hours, issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses

10Sections, nine closing with a reflective quiz

56Lessons, plus a post-course assessment

NZ$200One off. Twelve months' access

Who this course is for

Facing an allegation of unethical behaviour or conduct

The Council’s letter says a decision, a disclosure, a relationship or a way of working fell short of Good medical practice. This course is how you account for it — and show you have remediated.

Dealing with a Medical Council notification or complaint

A patient, a colleague, the HDC or ACC has notified the Council and you have been asked for your comments. Your written response is where the reasoning first appears; this course gives it the structure the Council reads for.

Under investigation by a Professional Conduct Committee

The Committee has the file and wants your explanation before it decides what to recommend. It reads for insight in your reflection — and for dated, targeted ethics remediation alongside it.

Facing a misconduct charge or hearing before the Tribunal

A charge of professional misconduct has been laid, or a penalty is being decided. Remediation completed before the hearing — dated, documented — is weighed every time.

Directed to complete ethics CPD or remediation

Conditions on your practising certificate, a Committee recommendation, a Tribunal order or a supervisor’s advice require education in ethics. The certificate records two dated CPD hours written to the Council’s own standard.

Expecting a complaint to reach the Council

A complaint to your employer, the Health and Disability Commissioner or ACC can become a Medical Council notification. Remediation done now is documented before it does.

The concerns this course speaks to

Professional and ethical boundaries

A friendship with a patient, messages outside the consultation, a gift accepted, a relationship with a colleague that crossed into something else. The Council’s sexual boundaries statement is explicit and reaches colleagues and students; the first small step is where the standard is engaged, and the response is where insight is judged.

Probity and an allegation of dishonesty

A forged document, a false ACC or subsidy claim, a reference or declaration that is not true, a Council or an employer misled. Honesty is the first of the Council’s ethical expectations, and dishonesty is the allegation a Professional Conduct Committee treats most seriously; probity and financial integrity have a section of their own.

Prescribing outside the rules

A prescription for yourself or a family member, a controlled drug without the record or the authority the rules require, a colleague supplied. Non-maleficence and honesty are both engaged; the course covers the duty and what a credible response to a prescribing allegation contains.

Records that do not say what happened

A note altered after the event, an observation recorded but not taken, a consultation not documented, a controlled drugs register that does not balance. The Council reads the record as evidence of honesty as much as of care; documentation has a section of its own.

Confidentiality and privacy

Patient information accessed without a clinical reason, shared without authority, or left unsecured. Confidentiality is a duty under Good medical practice and the Health Information Privacy Code, and both permit disclosure only in defined circumstances; the course covers how to decide, whom to tell and how to document it.

Health, impairment and the risk to patients

Practising while impaired by illness, fatigue, alcohol, drugs or a mental health condition, or not seeking help when a colleague or employer raised it. Impairment engages the Council’s health process and the duty not to cause avoidable harm; the course covers recognising impairment in yourself and in others, and what a credible response contains.

Conduct outside practice

A conviction, a dishonest act or behaviour away from work that reflects on your fitness to practise. The Tribunal’s grounds include conduct that brings discredit to the profession and convictions that reflect on fitness to practise; the course covers what the Council expects a doctor to disclose and to do next.

When two obligations collide

Informed refusal against your judgement; confidentiality against someone else’s safety; a family against the patient’s own wishes; conscience against a lawful request; whānau partnership under Te Tiriti; candour after harm. Many ethics complaints describe a doctor who followed one principle and did not see the other — the course teaches how to name the tension, decide, record, and tell the patient.

Facing a Medical Council investigation, complaint or allegation? This course helps you remediate — and demonstrate it.

Buy this course — NZ$200

What the course covers

Ten sections and 58 lessons, with a reflective quiz closing each of the first nine and a post-course assessment at the end.

Section 01

Introduction — Why Ethics Matters in New Zealand Medical Practice

Five lessons

Section 02

Core Ethical Principles — Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Justice

Five lessons

Section 03

MCNZ Good Medical Practice — Key Ethical Expectations

Eight lessons

Section 04

Common Ethical Dilemmas in New Zealand Clinical Practice

Seven lessons

Section 05

Confidentiality, Digital Professionalism, and Privacy (Health Information Privacy Code 2020)

Six lessons

Section 06

Probity, Honesty, and Accountability in New Zealand Medical Practice

Six lessons

Section 07

Weak vs Strong Ethical Responses — Case Comparisons

Seven lessons

Section 08

Demonstrating Ethics in Fitness-to-Practise and Remediation Processes

Six lessons

Section 09

Embedding Ethics into Professional Identity and Resilience

Six lessons

Section 10

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Key takeaways and the post-course assessment

Show every lesson title

Section 01 · Introduction — Why Ethics Matters in New Zealand Medical Practice: The Role of Ethics in New Zealand Medicine; Why the Medical Council Prioritises Ethics; Ethics and Professional Identity in Aotearoa; Consequences of Ethical Lapses; Why Ethics Matters Now More Than Ever.
Section 02 · Core Ethical Principles — Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Justice: Autonomy — Respecting Patient Choice; Beneficence — Acting in the Patient’s Best Interest; Non-Maleficence — "Do No Harm"; Justice — Fairness and Equality in Care; Balancing Principles in Practice.
Section 03 · MCNZ Good Medical Practice — Key Ethical Expectations: Honesty and Probity; Respect for Patient Autonomy and Informed Consent; Confidentiality and Privacy; Professional Boundaries; Conflicts of Interest; Communication and Candour; Digital Professionalism and Telehealth; Accountability and Remediation.
Section 04 · Common Ethical Dilemmas in New Zealand Clinical Practice: Informed Refusal vs Beneficence; Confidentiality vs Duty to Report; Advance Care Planning and Advance Directives; Allocation of Scarce Resources; Cultural Values and Te Tiriti Partnership; Conflicts of Conscience and Patient Rights; Digital Professionalism and Social Media.
Section 05 · Confidentiality, Digital Professionalism, and Privacy (Health Information Privacy Code 2020): The Ethical Duty of Confidentiality; Legal Framework — Privacy Act 2020 and Health Information Privacy Code 2020; Confidentiality in the Digital Era; Digital Professionalism and Social Media; Telehealth and Virtual Consultations; Consequences of Breaches.
Section 06 · Probity, Honesty, and Accountability in New Zealand Medical Practice: Probity as a Core Ethical Duty; Honesty in Documentation and Communication; Financial Integrity and Conflicts of Interest; Accountability in Clinical Practice; Consequences of Breaching Probity or Accountability; Building a Culture of Probity and Accountability.
Section 07 · Weak vs Strong Ethical Responses — Case Comparisons: Documentation Falsification; Consent Failure; Boundary Concern; Billing Misconduct; Disrespectful Communication; Cultural Safety and Equity Lapse; Lessons Across Cases.
Section 08 · Demonstrating Ethics in Fitness-to-Practise and Remediation Processes: Why Ethical Demonstration Matters; How the MCNZ Assesses Ethical Behaviour; Weak vs Strong Demonstrations; Evidence That Reassures the Council; Remediation Portfolios in New Zealand; Long-Term Monitoring and Ethical Growth.
Section 09 · Embedding Ethics into Professional Identity and Resilience: Ethics as Professional Identity; Daily Ethical Habits; Reflection and Accountability as Routine Practice; Building Resilience to Sustain Ethics; Mentorship and Role Modelling; Sustaining Ethics Across a Career.
Section 10 · Conclusion and Key Takeaways: Conclusion; Key Takeaways.

How to respond to a Medical Council notification, complaint or allegation

The Medical Council, a Professional Conduct Committee and the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal all read a written response for the same four parts. The course teaches each one.

The Council cannot read your mind at the time; it can only read what you write now.

The obligations in playWhich principles the situation engaged — autonomy, benefit, avoiding harm, fairness, honesty.The course maps each one to its heading in Good medical practice, so you can name it.
The conflictWhere two of them pointed different ways, stated plainly.The course’s New Zealand dilemmas show what the tension looks like on the page.
The decision and its reasonWhich obligation prevailed, and why, with what you knew at the time.Weak and strong responses to six real situations show the difference.
The reconsiderationWhat you would weigh differently now, with dated work that proves it.This course is the dated item you attach — and, for a conduct allegation, the remediation targeted to the lapse.

The sentence the Council reads as the absence of insight begins with an acknowledgement and continues with but.

Take advice from your indemnity insurer, your union or a lawyer before you respond to anyone.

Facing a Medical Council investigation, complaint or allegation? This course helps you remediate — and demonstrate it.

Buy this course — NZ$200

How this course helps with a Medical Council investigation

The Council reads for insight before it reads for outcome

The course pairs weak and strong responses to six situations — a falsified observation, a consent not taken, a friendship with a patient, a false ACC claim, a remark to a frightened patient, whānau left out of discharge planning — and shows why the Council treats one doctor as safe to continue and refers the other. The difference is insight: naming the standard you fell short of before the Council does, accepting the effect without qualification, and pointing to dated, checkable change.

Remediation that stands up

A remediation portfolio for an ethics matter in New Zealand contains reflective writing that cites Good medical practice by heading, targeted CPD (this course is one dated item), an audit repeated after an interval, supervisor reports and purposeful feedback. The Council discounts generic CPD, an apology for the complaint and reflection that argues. For the stages from the first letter to the Tribunal, see the Council investigation process, explained.

Read the primary sources

Buy this course — NZ$200

Who wrote it

Dr Shehzad Iqbal

Course author and facilitator, Healthcare Ethics New Zealand

Dr Iqbal has designed and delivered ethics, probity and professionalism training for healthcare professionals since 2020, working with registrants across regulated health professions, online and face to face. He combines clinical practice with formal postgraduate training in healthcare law and ethics.

MBBS · MRCS · MRCGP · Postgraduate Certificate in Healthcare Law and Ethics, University of Dundee

Written and reviewed by Dr Shehzad Iqbal. Last reviewed September 2026.

In short

Ethics and Ethical Standards for Doctors is a two-hour, self-paced remediation course for doctors registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand facing a notification, investigation, complaint or allegation, written to Good medical practice. It covers the four principles the Council expects every decision to answer to — autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice — read through Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Council’s cultural safety standard; the dilemmas of New Zealand practice in which they conflict — refusal, confidentiality, advance care planning, scarce resources, conscience, whānau partnership, candour, the online record; and what a credible account of a decision looks like in a response to a notification, a Professional Conduct Committee or the Tribunal. Ten sections, the first nine closing with a reflective quiz, a post-course assessment, and a dated certificate from Healthcare Ethics Courses. It is remediation and dated evidence of it; it decides no matter, and it is not a substitute for advice from your indemnity insurer, your union or a lawyer.

When two principles point different ways

Many ethics complaints about doctors do not describe a doctor who ignored ethics. They describe a doctor who followed one principle and did not notice that another was in play. Autonomy, benefit, avoiding harm and fairness agree most of the time; the consultation that produces a notification is the one in which they did not, and the Council asks afterwards whether the doctor saw the conflict and decided it, or simply acted.

The course treats each principle as the Medical Council does — an obligation with a place in Good medical practice, a place in New Zealand law and a recognisable way of being breached — read through Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Council’s cultural safety standard, and applied to the telehealth call and the online record as much as the room. It closes with what to do when principles conflict and there is no time: name the tension, decide, record the reason, and tell the patient.

In a written response, name the principles that were in tension, say which gave way and why, and say what you would weigh differently now. The Council reads for the second sentence.

What these words mean

The three terms that decide where an ethics matter goes, and the principles the course is built on.

Professional Conduct Committee: The committee the Medical Council appoints under s 71 of the Act to investigate a conduct concern: two doctors and a layperson with a legal adviser. It asks for your written response, may hear from you, and recommends anything from no further action, through counselling and a competence or health review, to a charge before the Tribunal (s 80).
Professional misconduct: The Tribunal’s ground under s 100 of the Act: malpractice or negligence in your scope of practice, or conduct that has brought or was likely to bring discredit to the profession. Dishonesty, a boundary breach and a breach of confidence are among the ethics findings made under it.
The three routes under the HPCA Act: Fitness to practise is the phrase practitioners use for the whole process. Under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 the Council takes one of three routes: a competence review (your practice against the required standard); the health process — the Act’s fitness to practise provisions, for impairment by a mental or physical condition; or a referral of your conduct to a Professional Conduct Committee, which can lay a charge of professional misconduct before the Tribunal. Which route your letter names tells you how the matter is being treated.

The four principles and the other terms the course uses

Autonomy: The patient’s right to decide about their own care on the basis of adequate information and without pressure. In practice: informed consent, informed refusal, and the record that shows both were real. Breached by proceeding without consent, by pressure, and by treating a refusal as a problem to be managed rather than a decision to be respected.
Beneficence: The obligation to act for the patient’s benefit, judged by their circumstances rather than the doctor’s convenience. In New Zealand it includes advocacy and attention to the social causes of ill health. It does not override a competent refusal.
Non-maleficence: The obligation not to cause avoidable harm, by act or omission: safe prescribing, acting on results, practising within competence and scope, not practising while impaired. The principle often engaged by a competence review.
Justice: Fairness between patients and to the public: allocation on clinical need, non-discrimination, honesty in claims on public funds. Engaged whenever there is not enough of something and whenever a doctor’s own interest is in the room.
Informed consent: Agreement to care given by a patient who has capacity, has been told what a reasonable person in their position would want to know, and is free to decline. In New Zealand it is both a professional standard and a patient’s legal right, and a consent notification engages both.
Confidentiality: The duty to keep health information private, under the Council’s standard and under the Health Information Privacy Code. Not absolute: disclosure is permitted in defined circumstances, and the course covers how a decision to disclose — or not — is made and recorded.
Conscientious objection: A doctor’s right to decline to provide a lawful service on grounds of conscience, conditional on telling the patient, not obstructing their access elsewhere, and providing care that is not in conflict. The condition is where notifications arise.
Candour: Openness with a patient when care has caused harm: what happened, what it means, what will be done. Required by the Council’s standard, and the subject of a companion course.

The provisions an ethics concern about a doctor engages

The Medical Council publishes its own standards of ethical conduct under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, and an ethics notification about a doctor is measured against them. These are the standard itself and the provisions of the Act the notification runs under.

Medical Council — Good medical practice

The Council’s current statement of 1 November 2021 — informed consent, patient records, sexual and professional boundaries, prescribing, disclosure of harm. It is the standard the course is written to and the document the Medical Council reads your response against. Read it.

For this course: The course maps the four principles onto the headings of Good medical practice so that a response can cite the heading the Council will apply.

Section 71 — referral to a Professional Conduct Committee

A conduct concern — and an ethics concern is a conduct concern — is referred to a Professional Conduct Committee, which investigates independently and asks you for a written response. That response is where you show which principle was engaged and what you understand about it. Read it.

For this course: An ethics concern about a doctor — consent, confidentiality, a boundary, honesty — is referred here as conduct, and the course explains what the Committee’s investigation will look at.

Section 100 — the grounds of discipline

The Tribunal may discipline for professional misconduct — malpractice or negligence, or conduct likely to bring discredit to the profession — among other grounds. Discredit to the profession is the Tribunal’s ethics ground: dishonesty, a boundary breach, a breach of confidence. Read it.

For this course: Failures of consent, confidentiality, boundaries and honesty can each reach this threshold; the course explains why.

Section 101 — the penalties

Censure, conditions, suspension for up to three years, cancellation of registration, a fine of up to NZ$30,000 and costs. Insight, remediation and conduct since the events are weighed every time, and an ethics course completed before the hearing is dated evidence of them. Read it.

For this course: The Tribunal’s penalty decisions in ethics cases weigh whether the doctor saw the ethical question; the course is about being able to show that.

Also engaged: Section 118 — the Council sets the standards a notification is measured against · Section 80 — what a Professional Conduct Committee may recommend, from counselling to a charge · Section 36 — a competence review where the concern is judgement in general, not one decision.

What happens after an ethics notification reaches the Medical Council

The same stages as any notification about a doctor. At every one the reader asks the same three things: did you see the ethical question, did you decide it for reasons you can state, and have you reconsidered — with dated evidence.

The notification is received and triaged
The Council’s triage team reads the notification or complaint and writes to you for your comments. A response that sets out the reasoning frequently ends an ethics matter here.
A competence review, where judgement is the question
Where the notification suggests your clinical judgement is generally below the required standard rather than one decision contestable, the Council may order a competence review; a competence programme is the usual outcome where a gap is found.
The health route, where fitness is the question
Where the allegation is that you practised while unwell, impaired or exhausted, the Council’s Health Committee takes it under the Act’s fitness to practise provisions — supportive and confidential, with assessment, monitoring and conditions where needed. Recognising the risk yourself, early, is what it reads for.
A Professional Conduct Committee, where conduct is the question
Where the allegation is dishonesty, a boundary breach or another failure of ethical conduct, the Council appoints a Professional Conduct Committee to investigate. Its options run from no further action through counselling to a charge of professional misconduct before the Tribunal, and the choice rests on what it believes will happen next.
The Tribunal
The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hears charges of professional misconduct, including dishonesty and boundary matters, and publishes its decisions. It weighs insight, remediation and conduct since the events explicitly, and any conditions, programme or order it makes are reviewed against what has changed.
Interim orders where there is a risk of serious harm
Where patients are at serious risk the Council may suspend your practising certificate or impose interim conditions at any stage, and the Tribunal may do the same once a charge is laid. An interim order is precautionary, not a finding, and is reviewed.

Facing a Medical Council investigation, complaint or allegation? This course helps you remediate — and demonstrate it.

Buy this course — NZ$200

Not a doctor? New Zealand regulates 18 professions under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, and the process is the same for all — courses for every registered profession →

Frequently asked questions

What does the Council want in a response to an ethics notification?

The reasoning: which principles were engaged, where they conflicted, which prevailed and why, what the effect was, and what you would weigh differently now — with the standard you fell short of named by you, before the Council names it.

Should I take advice before I respond to the Council?

Yes — before anything is written to the Council, a Professional Conduct Committee, the Tribunal or your employer. Your indemnity insurer, your union or a lawyer should read a response before it goes. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and no course determines the outcome of a matter.

Will the Medical Council or a Professional Conduct Committee accept this course as remediation?

No provider is accredited by the Medical Council, and no course decides a matter. What a Committee and the Tribunal weigh is dated, targeted remediation with reflection that engages the standard — and this course is written to Good medical practice, heading by heading, so the connection is plain on the certificate and in your reflective account. Check the wording of any direction with your indemnity insurer or lawyer before you rely on it.

The patient refused treatment and came to harm. Am I responsible?

A patient with capacity is entitled to refuse, and the Council’s standard requires the refusal to be respected. The investigation will ask whether the refusal was informed, whether capacity was considered, whether follow-up was offered, and whether the record shows it — the course’s section on informed refusal is written for exactly this notification.

When can I breach confidentiality?

When the law requires it, and when disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious threat to someone’s life or health — to the extent necessary and, where possible, with the patient told. The Health Information Privacy Code sets the circumstances; the course covers the decision, the recipient and the record.

I have a conscientious objection. What am I obliged to do?

Tell the patient that you object and that the service is available elsewhere, and do not obstruct their access to it. The objection is respected; abandoning the patient is not, and many complaints in this area arise from the second.

Is cultural safety really an ethical standard, or a communication skill?

An ethical standard. The Council expects partnership with Māori patients and their whānau under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and treats excluding whānau from a decision, or care that does not ask what matters to the patient, as a lapse in ethical conduct.

How is this course different from the Professionalism course for doctors?

This course is about the reasoning behind a decision; the Professionalism course is about conduct — communication, honesty in records, boundaries, cultural safety as behaviour. A notification that says a decision was wrong usually starts here; one that describes how you behaved usually starts there.

Does the course cover telehealth and social media?

Yes. The Council judges online conduct as professional conduct; the course has a section on digital professionalism and the Health Information Privacy Code, and two of its case comparisons concern the online record.

How long does it take, and how long do I have access?

The course is 2 CPD hours, self-paced, with access for twelve months from purchase. The certificate is issued on completion, dated, with the course title and the CPD hours, for your recertification programme, a portfolio or a response.

Notifications rarely raise one issue. These are the courses that pair with this one.

Professionalism and Professional Standards for Doctors

A Medical Council notification about conduct: boundaries, consent, records, social media or scope, measured against Good medical practice. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Privacy, Consent and Chaperone in Healthcare Practice

Consent, privacy and the presence of another person during an examination: for NZ practitioners facing an allegation about an examination. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Confidentiality in Healthcare Practice

Confidentiality and privacy course for NZ health practitioners facing a notification or privacy concern under the Health Information Privacy Code. 2 hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Effective Communication for Healthcare Professionals

Communication course for NZ health practitioners facing a notification about manner, omission, honesty, explanation or handover. 2 CPD hours, NZ$200.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Documentation for Healthcare Professionals

Clinical documentation and health records course for NZ health practitioners facing a notification about records, late entries or amendments. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Duty of Candour for Healthcare Professionals

Open disclosure course for NZ health practitioners facing a notification about non-disclosure, delay, a minimised account or a missing apology. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Rebuilding Trust of Patients, Colleagues, the Public and the Regulator

After a notification, conditions or a Tribunal finding in NZ, what is assessed is what you did next: insight, remediation, evidence of change. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200