Threat to deny treatment

I am a patient in Dar and have been receiving specialised treatment from a doctor. Before appointments with my doctor, I often use AI tools to help me understand my condition and prepare questions. My doctor recently told me that if I continue using AI, he may stop treating me. Can a doctor refuse to treat me simply because I ask AI-generated questions? Is there no local Tanzanian law that prevents him from stopping treatment?
AM, Mwanza

Your question sits at the intersection of modern technology, patient rights and medical ethics. To begin with, we are not aware of a Tanzanian law, at least at present, that specifically prohibits a patient from using AI to understand their medical conditions or prepare questions before consultation. Equally, there is no law that gives a doctor the exclusive right to be the sole source of information available to a patient. In fact, modern healthcare increasingly recognises the concept of patient autonomy, that is, patients should actively participate in decisions affecting their own health. Tanzanian healthcare laws and ethical frameworks are built around informed decision-making, professional conduct and patient welfare.

Despite the above, the issue is exacerbated by the doctor’s threat to discontinue treatment. Under Tanzanian law, medical practitioners are regulated by the Medical Council of Tanganyika and are governed by the Medical, Dental and Allied Health Professionals Act (the Act) as well as professional ethical rules. The law empowers the Council to supervise professional conduct, investigate complaints and enforce ethical standards. Our review of the Act does not reveal any provision implying that a doctor may terminate treatment merely because a patient asks difficult questions or relies on AI-generated information. On the contrary, professional ethics generally require doctors to act in the best interests of patients and maintain professional standards.

Having said the above, doctors are not usually under a legal obligation to continue a doctor-patient relationship indefinitely. Outside emergency situations, a doctor may decide to withdraw from treating a patient if there has been a genuine breakdown in trust, communication or cooperation. The key issue is whether the withdrawal is carried out professionally and without exposing the patient to harm including but not limited to adequate notice with reasons and/or referral options.

Depending on the circumstances, a complaint could potentially be made to the Medical Council. The Council has powers to inquire into allegations relating to professional conduct and patient complaints.  Whether a complaint would succeed merely because the doctor dislikes AI, that is less clear. A doctor would likely argue that the issue is not AI itself, but whether the consultation process has become unworkable or whether the doctor believes the therapeutic relationship has broken down. Whether such an explanation is reasonable would depend entirely on the prevailing facts and circumstances.

In our humble opinion, a doctor should not feel threatened simply because a patient wishes to be informed. Asking questions is not misconduct. Seeking knowledge is not misconduct. Wanting to understand your own body is certainly not misconduct. Perhaps the more important question is whether the doctor sees AI as a rival or as a tool. The strongest medical professionals are unlikely to be those who insist that patients know less, but those who are confident enough to explain why the AI is right, wrong or only partly correct.

In the years ahead, patients who use AI will become the norm rather than the exception. The challenge for both doctors and patients will be learning how to use it constructively rather than allowing it to undermine trust.

Finally, currently, the law in Tanzania is unlikely to punish a patient for using AI to ask questions. The real issue is whether both doctor and patient can maintain the mutual confidence that every successful medical relationship ultimately depends upon. You can seek further guidance from your lawyer.

Control over Contractor in Tanzania’s Oil and Gas Sector

I am a chief operations officer at one of the Companies operating in the Oil and Gas sector in Tanzania (TZCo) under partnership arrangement with the National Oil Company (TPDC). While our Company is owned by a South African Company, the South African Company is owned by a Company registered in Europe. It has been resolved that the UK Company is selling its minority equity in the SA Company. We are wondering if there is any filing for consent or approval from the Minister for Energy in Tanzania, and if so, who should do that. We kindly seek your legal guide.
RT, Dar es Salaam

Oil and gas operations in Tanzania and all transactions relating to such operations are governed by the Petroleum Act of 2015 (the Act). Under the Act, the petroleum sector is accessed through licences and the supplementing agreements, that is, Production Sharing Agreements (PSA) commonly used in the upstream subsector and Host Government Agreements (HGA) or any other form of agreement that may be concluded between an investor and the Government. Thus, the Government exercises control over petroleum operations through licence, agreements and the available laws.

In terms of section 108 of the Act, in the case where a development licence is granted to a licenceholder (TPDC) who is in partnership with a contractor, such contractor cannot after the date of grant of licence without the written consent of the Minister register the transfer of any share of the contractor to any particular person or his nominee; or enter into any agreement with any particular person, if the effect of doing so would be to give such particular person or his nominee control of the contractor’s company. A person is deemed to have control of a company where such person or his nominee holds a total of 20% or more of equity shares in the company; or is entitled to appoint or prevent the appointment of a sufficient number of directors to form a quorum at meetings of directors.
It should be noted that the law refers to the Contractor, that is, such Contractor cannot register share transfer or, through agreement, change its control without the Minister’s permission.

In our view, section 108 targets the Contractor (TZCo), not its parents. Much as there could be fillings with other authorities for an indirect change of control, under the Act, seeking consent from the Minister is not necessary, for neither shares in the Contractor (TZCo) are transferred nor is there any agreement involving the Contractor that result in changing control over the Contractor. Thus, the law seems to envisage a direct change of control. In these circumstances, notification to the Minister suffices.

However, for certainty purposes, you can write to the Minister seeking his confirmation that no consent is required for sale of shares in the SA Company, for this Company is not TPDC’s contractor.