Medical Council · NMBI · Dental Council · PSI · CORU · Complaint or fitness to practise inquiry
Medical Ethics Course for healthcare professionals facing a complaint to their regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry about ethical conduct
The complaint raises more than one ethical concern — consent, confidentiality, honesty, a boundary.
- Consent — treatment without valid consent, capacity not assessed, or the discussion not recorded
- Confidentiality — information shared without a reason, or a disclosure made and then questioned
- Candour — an error not disclosed, or an apology given without reflection
- Boundaries — a boundaries breach with a patient or a colleague, or a dual relationship
- Probity — a backdated note, an inflated claim, an overstated qualification or a copied reflection
- Online conduct — patient details in a messaging app, an identifiable post, or a telehealth limit not recorded
- Fairness — access or priority decided by something other than clinical need
- Any other concern — an allegation of unethical conduct, or an ethical concern not listed here
Facing an allegation of unethical behaviour or professional misconduct like these — before the Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland or CORU?
This course is for a healthcare professional facing a complaint or a fitness to practise inquiry about ethical conduct. This course helps you remediate — and show the remediation, with a dated certificate for your written response, your reflection, an undertaking or an inquiry.
| Courses | Price per course | You save |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | €100 | No saving |
| 2 | €88 | €25 |
| 3 | €83 | €50 |
| 5 | €80 | €100 |
| 10 | €70 | €300 |
Add courses. The saving is applied in the basket.
Immediate access · certificate on completion · twelve months' access
- 2 CPD hours
- Self-paced
- Written for Ireland
- CPD certificate
- From €70 a course (Bulk Buy of 10)
Dr Shehzad IqbalFounder, course author and facilitatorMBBS, MRCS, MRCGP
Dr Mo MirzaCourse facilitatorMedically trained, UCL London
Ludmila UpenieceBusiness development and supportPsychology, UEL London
At a glance
- Who it is for
- Any healthcare professional in Ireland facing a complaint, a preliminary decision or a fitness to practise inquiry that raises one or more ethical concerns — consent, confidentiality, candour, boundaries, probity, conduct online or fairness
- Regulator covered
- Applies to practitioners registered with the Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI), the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI) or CORU
- Length
- 11 sections, 55 lessons, 2 CPD hours
- Format
- Self-paced, online, immediate access, twelve months from purchase
- Certificate
- Certificate issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses on completion, dated, with the course title and 2 CPD hours
- Price
- €100 · from €70 a course (Bulk Buy of 10)
Certificate issued by Healthcare Ethics CoursesRemediation courses for regulatory processes.
The certificate you will receive
How healthcare professionals use it
- With a written response to your regulator or its preliminary committee, alongside a reflection
- When an undertaking or a consent is discussed, or in your evidence to an inquiry committee
- As a dated record of remediation for the regulator when sanction is considered
Who this course is for
Facing an allegation of unethical behaviour
The letter describes a decision or a way of working that did not meet your regulator’s code: consent not obtained, information shared, an error not disclosed, a claim that was not accurate. The course gives each of these a section of its own, and shows how to account for it in writing.
Several concerns raised at once
A complaint that names consent and records, or confidentiality and conduct online, needs a response that answers each concern. The course works through eight areas of ethical practice, from the four principles to fairness in allocating resources, so that no part of the complaint is left unanswered.
Facing a complaint to your regulator
The Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the PSI or CORU has written to tell you of a complaint. Your first written reply is where your ethical reasoning is first read, and the course gives it a structure you can follow under pressure.
Before a Preliminary Proceedings Committee
At the Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI and CORU the committee looks at a complaint before any inquiry; under the Dentists Act the Fitness to Practise Committee considers whether there is a prima facie case. The Medical Council’s undertakings guidance names the level of insight shown as one of the factors it weighs.
Facing a fitness to practise inquiry
The complaint has gone to a Fitness to Practise Committee, a Professional Conduct Committee or a Health Committee. Remediation completed before the hearing, dated and documented, is evidence you can put before the committee and the regulator.
Asked for a reflective statement or a portfolio
Your adviser, your employer or a committee wants a reflection or evidence of remediation. Section 10 compares weak and strong ethical reasoning in writing, sets out what an ethical portfolio contains, and what to emphasise in writing to each of the five regulators.
The concerns this course speaks to
Consent and capacity
Treatment without the risks or alternatives explained, capacity assumed or not recorded, a consent note written later. Section 3 covers the four elements of valid consent — voluntary, informed, capacitated and documented — shared decision-making, assessing capacity, emergencies, and the documentation of consent.
Confidentiality and justified disclosure
Details discussed where others could hear, a record opened without a clinical need, a disclosure made to protect someone else and then questioned. Section 4 covers the duty of confidentiality, GDPR and data protection, safeguarding, public interest and legal obligations, and digital confidentiality.
Candour after an error
An error not disclosed, or disclosed with an apology but no account of what has changed. Section 5 separates an apology from a reflection and an explanation from a justification, and sets out how insight is judged in a regulatory process.
Professional boundaries and conflicts of interest
A friendship with a client, expensive gifts from a long-term patient, a referral to a clinic in which you hold shares. Keeping the boundary is the professional’s responsibility, with a patient or a colleague. Section 6 covers emotional, financial, sexual and digital boundary breaches with patients, boundaries with colleagues (seniority used over a junior colleague, bullying or harassment, a personal relationship that compromises supervision), and conflicts of interest declared to patients, colleagues and regulators.
Probity in records, claims and qualifications
A backdated note, an inflated PRSI claim, a qualification overstated, a CPD reflection copied from a colleague. Section 7 covers documentation integrity, billing and financial transparency, advertising and professional claims, and research and academic integrity, and why dishonesty is weighed more seriously than clinical error.
Conduct online and electronic records
Patient details shared in a messaging app, an identifiable post, a video consultation with its limits not recorded, an electronic record altered after a dispensing error. Section 8 covers telehealth, messaging, social media, the integrity of electronic records and digital candour.
Fairness and resource allocation
A waiting list ordered by something other than clinical need, public patients given less time than private ones. Section 9 covers justice, prioritisation, equity between public and private care, transparency in allocation decisions, and fairness in emergencies.
When two principles conflict
A patient refuses treatment that could save their life; a costly treatment for one patient takes resources from others. Section 2 sets out autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, and how to balance them: acknowledge the conflict, explain the decision and link it to the principles.
Facing a complaint to your regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry? This course helps you remediate — and show it.
Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)What the course covers
Eleven sections and 55 lessons, with a reflective quiz closing each of the first ten and a post-course assessment at the end.
Introduction — Ethics in Irish Healthcare and Regulation
Four lessons
Core Principles — Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Justice
Five lessons
Consent & Capacity — Shared Decisions, Documentation, Special Contexts
Five lessons
Confidentiality & Justified Disclosure — GDPR, Safeguarding, Public Interest
Six lessons
Candour & Insight — Apology, Explanation, Reflection
Five lessons
Professional Boundaries & Conflicts of Interest
Five lessons
Probity & Honesty — Documentation, Billing, Advertising, Research Integrity
Six lessons
Digital Professionalism — Telehealth, Messaging, Social Media, EHR Integrity
Six lessons
Fairness & Resource Allocation — Prioritisation, Equity, Transparency
Six lessons
Writing for Regulators — Strong vs Weak Ethical Reasoning; Portfolio Evidence
Five lessons
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
Two lessons, Conclusion and Key Takeaways, and the post-course assessment
Show every lesson title
- Section 01 · Introduction — Ethics in Irish Healthcare and Regulation
- What Medical Ethics Means in Practice; Why Ethics Matters for Patients; Why Ethics Matters for Regulators; Ethics as Lifelong Professional Identity.
- Section 02 · Core Principles — Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Justice
- Autonomy — Respecting Patient Choice; Beneficence — Acting in the Patient’s Best Interests; Non-Maleficence — Do No Harm; Justice — Fairness and Equity in Care; Balancing the Principles.
- Section 03 · Consent & Capacity — Shared Decisions, Documentation, Special Contexts
- Elements of Valid Consent; Shared Decision-Making; Assessing Capacity; Special Contexts; Documentation of Consent.
- Section 04 · Confidentiality & Justified Disclosure — GDPR, Safeguarding, Public Interest
- The Duty of Confidentiality; GDPR and Data Protection; Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups; Public Interest and Legal Obligations; Digital Confidentiality; Practical Safeguards for Professionals.
- Section 05 · Candour & Insight — Apology, Explanation, Reflection
- The Duty of Candour; Apology vs Reflection; Explanation vs Justification; Insight in Regulatory Processes; How to Demonstrate Candour and Insight.
- Section 06 · Professional Boundaries & Conflicts of Interest
- Professional Boundaries; Types of Boundary Breaches; Conflicts of Interest; Digital Boundaries and Online Conduct; Safeguards for Professionals.
- Section 07 · Probity & Honesty — Documentation, Billing, Advertising, Research Integrity
- Documentation Integrity; Billing and Financial Transparency; Advertising and Professional Claims; Research and Academic Integrity; Why Probity is Sanctioned More Harshly than Error; Practical Safeguards.
- Section 08 · Digital Professionalism — Telehealth, Messaging, Social Media, EHR Integrity
- Telehealth and Remote Consultations; Messaging and Informal Channels; Social Media and Public Platforms; Electronic Health Records (EHRs) Integrity; Digital Candour and Transparency; Practical Safeguards for Digital Professionalism.
- Section 09 · Fairness & Resource Allocation — Prioritisation, Equity, Transparency
- Justice as a Core Ethical Principle; Prioritisation in Clinical Practice; Equity Between Public and Private Systems; Transparency in Allocation Decisions; Ethical Challenges in Emergencies; Practical Safeguards for Professionals.
- Section 10 · Writing for Regulators — Strong vs Weak Ethical Reasoning; Portfolio Evidence
- Weak Ethical Reasoning; Strong Ethical Reasoning; Building Ethical Portfolios; Regulator Expectations in Writing; Practical Writing Tips.
- Section 11 · Conclusion and Key Takeaways
- Conclusion; Key Takeaways.
How to show ethical reasoning in a response to a complaint or fitness to practise inquiry
Whether it is read at the preliminary stage, by an inquiry committee or by the regulator deciding a sanction, a response to an ethics complaint is read for reasoning and insight. These are the four parts to set out, and what the course gives you for each.
A response that describes what happened, without saying why it was wrong, leaves the committee to supply the reasoning itself.
- The principle and the standardWhich principle the conduct engaged, and the standard in your own regulator’s code.Section 2 sets out the four principles, and Section 10 what to emphasise in writing to each of the five regulators.
- An honest admissionWhat happened, stated plainly, without minimising it or blaming the system.Section 10 sets weak ethical reasoning — minimising, blaming others, generic promises — against strong.
- Explanation, not justificationThe context, given as context and not as an excuse.Section 5 separates an explanation from a justification, and an apology from a reflection.
- Evidence of changeDated, specific to the concern, and confirmable by someone else.Section 10 covers the ethical portfolio: reflective statements, targeted CPD, audits, supervisor reports and feedback — and this course is a dated item for it.
An apology that continues with but reads as a defence, not as insight.
Take advice from your indemnifier, your union or professional body, or a solicitor before you respond to anyone.
Facing a complaint to your regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry? This course helps you remediate — and show it.
Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)How this course helps with a complaint or fitness to practise inquiry
Ethical reasoning is read for insight
The Medical Council’s Guidance on Sanctions says a practitioner may demonstrate insight by providing evidence of their understanding of the problem, and NMBI’s Guidance on Sanctions says “Mere acknowledgement of the findings does not necessarily demonstrate insight.” Section 10 shows the difference in writing: a weak statement that promises it will not happen again, and a strong one that names the standard breached, the effect on trust, and the CPD, audits and supervision completed since.
One course for every profession
Despite its name, the course is written for all five Irish regulators — the Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI, the Dental Council and CORU — with examples from general practice, hospital medicine, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, physiotherapy and social work. Ask your adviser what your own regulator’s committee will take into account. For the stages from the first letter to the High Court, see the fitness to practise process in Ireland, explained.
Read the primary sources
- Guidance on Sanctions Imposed by the Medical Council (28 May 2024)
- Undertakings and Consents Guidance — Medical Council
- Guidance on Sanctions — Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland
- Fitness to practice — Dental Council of Ireland
- Disciplinary committees — Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland
- What happens when CORU receives a complaint
- CORU fitness to practise trends report (2022 to 2024)
Who wrote it
Dr Shehzad Iqbal
Course author and facilitator, Healthcare Ethics Ireland
Dr Iqbal wrote this course. He combines clinical practice with a formal postgraduate qualification in healthcare law and ethics, and has worked with registrants across the regulated health professions, online and face to face, since 2020.
He founded Probity & Ethics in the United Kingdom in 2020 and Healthcare Ethics Courses, which issues the certificates, in 2025. More about us.
MBBS · MRCS · MRCGP · Postgraduate Certificate in Healthcare Law and Ethics, University of Dundee
Written and reviewed by Dr Shehzad Iqbal. Last reviewed .
In short
The Medical Ethics Course is a two-hour, self-paced remediation course for healthcare professionals in Ireland — registered with the Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland or CORU — who face a complaint, a preliminary decision or a fitness to practise inquiry that raises one or more ethical concerns. It applies autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice to clinical and professional decisions; covers valid consent and capacity; confidentiality and justified disclosure, with GDPR, safeguarding and the public interest; candour, apology and insight; professional boundaries and conflicts of interest; probity in records, billing, advertising and research; digital professionalism, from telehealth to electronic records; fairness in allocating limited resources; and writing for regulators, from weak and strong ethical reasoning to the ethical portfolio. Eleven sections, the first ten 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 complaint, and it is not a substitute for advice from your indemnifier, your union or professional body, or a solicitor.
Medical ethics is not only for doctors
The four principles of medical ethics apply to every regulated healthcare professional, and one complaint can engage several of them at once. Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice are the framework the course applies to consent discussions, confidentiality decisions, records, billing, conduct online and the allocation of limited resources. In practice the principles can conflict: a patient refuses treatment that could save their life, or a costly treatment for one patient diverts resources from others.
The course does not ask for perfection. It asks for reasoning that can be followed: acknowledge the conflict, explain the decision and link it to the principles — and, where the decision was wrong, say so and show what has changed.
In a written response, name the principle engaged, the standard in your code, what you would decide differently now, and the evidence that practice has changed.
What these words mean
The three terms that decide where a complaint goes, and the principles the course is built on.
- Preliminary Proceedings Committee
- The committee of the Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI and CORU that looks at a complaint before any inquiry: it may take no further action, suggest mediation, conclude the matter with an undertaking or a consent where its Act allows, or refer the complaint to an inquiry. Under the Dentists Act the Fitness to Practise Committee considers whether there is a prima facie case.
- Fitness to practise inquiry
- The hearing stage: before the Fitness to Practise Committee at the Medical Council, NMBI and the Dental Council, and before the Professional Conduct Committee or the Health Committee at the PSI and CORU. Any sanction heavier than an advice, admonishment or censure takes effect only when the High Court confirms it.
- Professional misconduct
- A ground under all five Acts — of a complaint under four of them, and of an application for an inquiry under the Dentists Act. The Dental Council describes it as a serious falling short in the standards expected of a dentist; the PSI as behaviour that goes against its Code of Conduct for registered pharmacists; CORU as any act, omission or pattern of conduct that breaches the Code.
The four principles and the other terms the course uses
- Autonomy
- The patient’s right to make informed decisions about their care. In practice: valid consent, respect for capacity and clear information.
- Beneficence
- Acting to benefit the patient, judged by their welfare rather than personal or organisational convenience.
- Non-maleficence
- The duty to avoid causing harm by action or omission: careful prescribing, accurate records, infection control and honest disclosure of risks.
- Justice
- Providing care fairly, without discrimination: access, prioritisation and resource allocation based on clinical need.
- Valid consent
- Consent that is voluntary, informed, given by a patient with capacity, and documented.
- Capacity
- The ability to understand, retain and weigh information and communicate a decision. Decision-specific and time-specific: presumed unless there is clear evidence otherwise.
- Justified disclosure
- Sharing confidential information without consent where safeguarding, a legal obligation or the public interest requires it — proportionate, documented and explained to the patient where possible.
- Candour
- Openness when something goes wrong: acknowledging the incident, explaining it, apologising and setting out the corrective steps.
- Conflict of interest
- A personal, financial or organisational interest that could improperly influence professional judgement, and that must be declared.
- Dual relationship
- A second relationship with a patient or a colleague alongside the professional one, such as a friendship or a business arrangement. Keeping the boundary is the professional’s responsibility.
- Ethical portfolio
- The evidence that an ethical lapse has been addressed: reflective statements, targeted CPD, audits, supervisor or mentor reports, and patient or colleague feedback.
The Acts a complaint is made and decided under
Ireland’s five health regulators each work under their own Act, all five amended by the Regulated Professions (Health and Social Care) (Amendment) Act 2020. These are the sections that say who may complain, on what grounds, and who looks at the complaint first.
Medical Council — Medical Practitioners Act 2007, section 57
A person, including the Council, may complain to the chief executive officer. The grounds include professional misconduct, poor professional performance, a relevant medical disability, and a failure to comply with a condition, an undertaking or a consent. The chief executive officer looks at the complaint first, an Authorised Officer may gather the facts, and the Preliminary Proceedings Committee decides whether there is enough cause to take further action. Read it.
For this course: The Medical Council’s Guidance on Sanctions says insight may be shown by evidence of understanding the problem; Section 10 covers the written statement and the portfolio.
NMBI — Nurses and Midwives Act 2011, section 55
A person, including the Board, may complain to the chief executive officer. The grounds include professional misconduct, poor professional performance, non-compliance with a code of professional conduct, a relevant medical disability, and an irregularity in relation to the custody, prescription or supply of a controlled drug. A Preliminary Proceedings Committee, assisted by a case officer, may refer a complaint to the Fitness to Practise Committee for a sworn oral inquiry. Read it.
For this course: NMBI’s Guidance on Sanctions says acknowledging the findings does not necessarily demonstrate insight; Section 10 sets weak and strong ethical reasoning side by side.
Dental Council — Dentists Act 1985, section 38
The Council or any person may apply to the Fitness to Practise Committee for an inquiry, on grounds that include alleged professional misconduct and alleged unfitness to practise by reason of physical or mental disability. The Fitness to Practise Committee considers whether there is a prima facie case, and if there is, it holds the inquiry. Read it.
For this course: Section 3 covers consent and capacity, and Section 7 honesty in billing, claims and advertising.
Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland — Pharmacy Act 2007, section 35
A complaint may be made in writing by or on behalf of any person, or by the registrar. The grounds include professional misconduct, poor professional performance, the effect on practice of a physical or mental ailment, emotional disturbance, or alcohol or drug addiction, and a failure to comply with a condition or an undertaking. The PSI separates a concern from a statutory complaint, which is for issues of a serious nature; its Preliminary Proceedings Committee may refer a complaint to a committee of inquiry or to mediation. Read it.
For this course: Section 7 covers documentation integrity, and Section 8 the integrity of electronic records.
CORU — Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005, section 52
A complaint may be made to the Council by or on behalf of any person, or by a registration board. The grounds include professional misconduct, which CORU describes as any act, omission or pattern of conduct that breaches the Code, and poor professional performance. The Preliminary Proceedings Committee screens out complaints that are trivial, vexatious, without substance or made in bad faith; the Professional Conduct Committee deals with conduct or competence, and the Health Committee with whether a registrant’s health is affecting their ability to practise. Read it.
For this course: CORU describes professional misconduct as any act, omission or pattern of conduct that breaches the Code; Section 6 covers professional boundaries and conflicts of interest.
Also engaged: Sanctions — advice, admonishment or censure, conditions, suspension and cancellation (erasure under the Dentists Act): Medical Practitioners Act s.71, Nurses and Midwives Act s.69, Dentists Act ss.39 to 41, Pharmacy Act s.48, Health and Social Care Professionals Act s.66 · High Court confirmation — the heavier sanctions take effect only when the High Court confirms them; an advice, admonishment or censure on confirmation or once the appeal window of 21 or 30 days passes without an appeal · The 2020 Act — the Regulated Professions (Health and Social Care) (Amendment) Act 2020, which amended all five Acts in stages from 2021 to 2025.
What happens after a complaint reaches an Irish regulator
Each regulator has its own Act and its own names for the stages, and your letter tells you which stage you are at. At each of them the same three things are worth showing in writing: that you see what went wrong, that you understand it against your regulator’s code, and what you have changed, with dated evidence.
The complaint and the grounds
Anyone may complain, including the regulator itself. Under the Medical Practitioners Act and the Nurses and Midwives Act the complaint goes to the chief executive officer; under the Pharmacy Act it may be made by or on behalf of any person or by the registrar; under the Health and Social Care Professionals Act by or on behalf of any person or by a registration board. Under the Dentists Act the Council or any person applies to the Fitness to Practise Committee for an inquiry. Professional misconduct is a ground of complaint under the other four Acts, and a ground for an application for an inquiry under the Dentists Act.
The preliminary stage
The Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI and CORU each have a Preliminary Proceedings Committee. At the Medical Council the chief executive officer looks at a complaint first and may assign an Authorised Officer, and the committee decides whether there is enough cause to take further action. At NMBI the committee may refer a complaint to the Fitness to Practise Committee for a sworn oral inquiry, or suggest mediation or informal resolution; at the PSI it may refer a complaint to a committee of inquiry or to mediation; at CORU it screens out complaints that are trivial, vexatious, without substance or made in bad faith. Under the Dentists Act the Fitness to Practise Committee considers whether there is a prima facie case.
Undertakings, consents and mediation
A complaint can be concluded by agreement in some cases. At the Medical Council’s preliminary stage a doctor may be asked to undertake not to repeat the conduct, or to consent to censure (2025 procedures). At NMBI in 2024, 12 undertakings or consents concluded matters at the preliminary stage and the Fitness to Practise Committee recommended 32 (State of Complaints 2024). Undertakings were the largest single Committee of Inquiry outcome in the cases CORU concluded in 2022 to 2024: 13, against 7 censures (trends report). In 2024 the Dental Council accepted undertakings from a dentist instead of making a High Court application (Annual Report 2024). Mediation at NMBI and CORU needs the consent of both sides.
The inquiry
The inquiry committee is the Fitness to Practise Committee at the Medical Council, NMBI and the Dental Council, and the Professional Conduct Committee or the Health Committee at the PSI and CORU. At NMBI allegations against a nurse or midwife must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Medical Council inquiries are held in public unless the Council decides on a hearing in private or part private (Medical Council); CORU says its Professional Conduct Committee hearings are normally held in public and its Health Committee hearings normally in private.
The sanction and the High Court
Sanctions run from advice, admonishment or censure (admonishment or censure at the PSI and CORU) through conditions and suspension to cancellation, called erasure under the Dentists Act (MPA s.71, NMA s.69, Dentists Act s.39, Pharmacy Act s.48, HSCP Act s.66). The heavier sanctions take effect only when the High Court confirms them; an advice, admonishment or censure takes effect on confirmation or once the appeal window passes without an appeal: 21 days for doctors, nurses, midwives and dentists, 30 days for pharmacists and CORU registrants (MPA s.74, NMA s.72, Dentists Act s.41, Pharmacy Act s.50, HSCP Act s.68).
Interim measures and your first reply
Separately, the Medical Council says interim suspension is possible under section 60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007; where there is a serious and immediate risk, the PSI’s Council can seek suspension from the High Court; and the Dental Council may apply to the High Court for suspension under section 44 of the Dentists Act. None of the five regulators publishes a fixed deadline for a first reply: the Medical Council gives not less than two weeks to respond to an Investigation Report, and NMBI says you may request an extension of time. Take advice before you reply.
Facing a complaint to your regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry? This course helps you remediate — and show it.
Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)Courses with the Ethics and Professionalism pair written to your own regulator’s code — for doctors, nurses and midwives, dentists, pharmacists and all other healthcare professionals, or every course →
Frequently asked questions
What does the Medical Ethics Course cover?
The four principles of medical ethics and how they apply to consent and capacity, confidentiality and justified disclosure, candour, professional boundaries and conflicts of interest, probity, digital professionalism and the fair allocation of resources. Section 10 covers writing for regulators: weak and strong ethical reasoning, the ethical portfolio, and what to emphasise for each of the five regulators.
I am not a doctor. Is this course for me?
Yes. Despite the name, the course is written for every healthcare professional regulated in Ireland — nurses and midwives, pharmacists, dentists and the CORU professions as well as doctors — with examples across those professions and a lesson on what to emphasise in writing to each regulator.
How is this course different from the Professional Ethics Course?
This course applies the moral principles — autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice — to decisions about care. The Professional Ethics Course is about the standards of conduct, probity and accountability each regulator sets, and compares five weak and strong responses. A complaint about a clinical decision fits this course; one about honesty or conduct fits the other; some complaints need both.
The complaint raises several concerns. Is one course enough?
This is the broader course: it has a section each on consent, confidentiality, candour, boundaries, probity, digital professionalism and fairness. Where one concern is serious — a boundary, an altered record, a breach of confidentiality — a course on that subject adds depth. Ask your adviser which concerns the response has to answer.
Does the course cover capacity?
Yes. Section 3 covers capacity as decision-specific and time-specific, the ability to understand, retain and weigh information and communicate a decision, the presumption of capacity, support for decision-making, and how the assessment should be recorded.
Does the course cover GDPR?
Section 4 has a lesson on GDPR and data protection — data minimisation, security and patient access — alongside the duty of confidentiality and when disclosure may be justified for safeguarding, legal obligations or the public interest. Whether a particular disclosure was lawful is a question for your adviser.
Can this course be used as evidence of remediation?
It can be part of the evidence, but no course decides a complaint. It gives you a dated certificate of 2 CPD hours and a structure for a reflection that names what happened, the standard engaged, its effect and what has changed. Whether a course meets a particular undertaking or condition depends on its wording, so read it with your adviser before you enrol.
Should I take advice before I respond?
Yes — before anything is written to the regulator, a committee or your employer. Whatever your profession, ask your indemnifier, your union or professional body, or a solicitor. Nothing on this page is legal advice.
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. Whether the hours count towards your own CPD requirement is for your regulator or scheme to say: doctors must undertake a minimum of 50 hours in each scheme year, and CORU registrants must achieve 30 CPD credits in every 12-month period.
Can I get a certificate with a later date?
No. The certificate records the date you completed the course, and that date does not change. If your regulator, an inquiry committee or an employer asks for recent evidence, you buy the course again: half price within twelve months of your original purchase, the full €100 after that.
Will anyone be told that I am taking the course?
No. Nobody is told you are enrolled. We do not share participant details with any regulator, an employer, a union or an indemnifier; the certificate reaches them only if you attach it to your own response.
Courses that work alongside this one
A complaint about ethical conduct can raise more than one issue. These are the courses that pair with this one.
Professional Ethics Course
What each Irish regulator expects, probity and integrity, boundaries and conflicts of interest, conduct online, five weak and strong responses, and the ethical portfolio.
Ethics for Healthcare Professionals
The four principles, the Irish regulators’ codes, ethical dilemmas, confidentiality, probity, and ethics in a fitness to practise process.
Privacy, Consent and Chaperone in Healthcare Practice
Patient privacy, valid consent, intimate examinations, chaperones and how each is documented, and complaints about an examination.
Confidentiality in Healthcare Practice
What confidentiality covers, everyday risks, information sharing and consent, team-based care, digital records, and breaches, complaints and investigations.
Duty of Candour for Healthcare Professionals
When the duty applies, talking with patients and families after an adverse event, and candour during complaints and reviews.
Probity and Honesty for Healthcare Professionals
Integrity, transparency and fairness, dishonesty set against clinical error, probity in documentation and billing, and weak and strong responses to a probity concern.
Professional Boundaries Course
Emotional, sexual, financial and digital boundary breaches, early warning signs of boundary drift, case studies, and weak and strong responses to a boundary complaint.
Medical Ethics Course
This course. The four principles, consent, confidentiality, candour, boundaries, probity, digital practice and fairness, and writing for regulators.
Start today, finish at your own pace
Immediate access on purchase. Twelve months' access, a dated certificate on completion, and 2 CPD hours issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses.