The relationship between a doctor and patient is one based on mutual trust. In order for the doctor to diagnose correctly, he/she must assume as well as trust that the patient has disclosed all relevant facts to his or her condition. Likewise, the patient must trust that the doctor will not disclose the information that has been given to him or her. The concept of confidentiality is as old as medical practice yet surprisingly defining confidentiality in a medical context is still proving difficult. It is perhaps obvious that confidentiality would involve an implied promise from the doctor not to ‘disclose voluntarily medical information gained in the course of his relationship with a particular patient’ .
There is no statute or common law
…show more content…
The justifications for maintaining the doctor and patient relationship are based upon deontological and consequentialist theories. A deontologist’s argument would be that confidentiality should be respected ‘as part of a general principle of patient autonomy’ . On the other hand, a consequentialist would regard confidentiality as being a necessity in obtaining full disclosure from the patient, thus guaranteeing correct identification and treatment of the patients’ condition. Rose J recognised the consequentialist’s viewpoint in the case of X v Y and stated that
In the long run, preservation of confidentiality is the only way of securing public health; otherwise doctors will be credited as a source of education, for future individuals patients will not come forward if doctors are going to squeal on
…show more content…
Whether or not the public interest of maintaining confidentiality should prevail is determined by the public interest test (PIT). This test enables decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis and assumes that maintaining confidence will triumph unless outweighed by the public interest of disclosure. The significant case of W v Edgell , where the court held that the duty of confidentiality owed by Mr Edgell to W was outweighed by the overriding interest of public safety. The Court of Appeal (CA) contemplated the issues raised in Edgell and found them to be one of the two competing interest, as discussed above: the public interest in maintaining confidence and the public interest in disclosing facts. The weighing of the interests ‘was said to require careful balancing’ and the ‘balancing of public interests is quintessentially a judicial activity’
A basic definition of confidentiality is that information about a patient is not discussed openly (Edge and Groves, 2007). This ethical principle became an issue when the government gave medical facilities lists of people who were in the study. Again, the patients were not informed that they would not be able to
One of the most complex, ever-changing careers is the medical field. Physicians are not only faced with medical challenges, but also with ethical ones. In “Respect for Patients, Physicians, and the Truth”, by Susan Cullen and Margaret Klein, they discuss to great extent the complicated dilemmas physicians encounter during their practice. In their publication, Cullen and Klein discuss the pros and cons of disclosing the medical diagnosis (identifying the nature or cause of the disease), and the prognosis (the end result after treating the condition). But this subject is not easily regulated nor are there guidelines to follow. One example that clearly illustrates the ambiguity of the subject is when a patient is diagnosed with a serious, life-threatening
Confidentiality is a major topic within care environments. When it comes to deciding what information is shared and who it is shared amongst can be difficult. Confidential information, is information that is ‘not to be told to anyone’ (The Open University, 2015, p. 58). Information that is sensitive or not publicly known is confidential, also if information is given by a person who is in a setting where confidentially is expected then that information should remain private and not shared with others. It can be very difficult for a staff member to find the balance between knowing what information is confidential and appropriate information that needs to be shared between the staff team.
Any patient harmed by the provision of a healthcare service is informed of the fact and an appropriate remedy offered, regardless of whether a complaint has been made or question asked about it. This is how the term “candour” is defined by Robert Francis in his report (1). GMC defines the professional duty of candour as openness and honesty when things go wrong (2). This is applicable not only to patients but also to colleagues, employers and regulators. In a profession as stressful as medicine where doctors and other healthcare professionals are entrusted with the provision of care to people, it is vital for the care givers to be completely honest with their patients, especially when things wrong. It is not an easy task and doctors hesitate to do so due to a number of reasons such as the fact that doctors see themselves as solely benevolent and do not appreciate that they may be sources
In the magazine Newsweek, Mack Lipkin wrote an article titled “On Telling Patients the Truth.” In this piece, he summarizes his belief that medical information should be withheld from the patient because it is impossible to be completely truthful. This action is justified because patients won’t be able to understand the information, misinterpretation often occurs, and some people just don’t want to know the truth. I disagree with Lipkin’s thesis. I believe that physicians have a moral obligation to tell their patients relevant information about their disease, unless the patient clearly states that he/she does not want to hear it. Patients should be given this information because medicine is patient-centered, communication is necessary to build trust in a patient-doctor relationship, and withholding the truth seems to be more harmful to the patient in the long run.
Without patient confidentiality, patients would not be willing to tell about themselves or their family member for fear of it getting out (tTelegraph). If they were asked
Confidentiality will always be an important component in medical discussions, but confidentiality on the other hand is not a right and has to be stable against counter claims (Chalmers, 2003). Some arguments and facts that were used in the article were how are health care providers supposed to be able to correct the stability? Should overt content always be required from clients for any use of their health care information separately from the direct clinical care? The proof suggests that where the informed consent is needed completeness of health information hurts and unfinished health ...
In “Should Doctors Tell the Truth?” Joseph Collins argues for paternalistic deception, declaring that it is permissible for physicians to deceive their patients when it is in their best interests. Collins considers his argument from a “pragmatic” standpoint, rather than a moral one, and uses his experience with the sick to justify paternalistic deception. Collins argues that in his years of practicing, he has encountered four types of patients who want to know the truth: those that want to know so they know how much time they have left, those who do not want to know and may suffer if told the truth, those who are incapable of hearing the truth, and those who do not have a serious diagnosis (605). Collins follows with the assertion that the more serious the condition is, the less likely the patient is to seek information about their health (606).
...y is not absolute and that the disclosure and justification of some individuals cases can potentially be successful. Moreover the person who disclosed the information will always be the person under scrutiny of the common law. Professionally, if the health care worker adhere to the policy it offers much protection for the topic of confidentiality and the correct attitude to retain information correctly.
Disclosure of pertinent medical facts and alternative course of treatment should not be overlooked by the physician in the decision making process. This is very important information impacting whether that patient will go along with the recommended treatment. The right to informed consent did not become a judicial issue ...
Patient confidentiality is one of the foundations to the medical practice. Patients arrive at hospitals seeking treatment believing that all personal information will remain between themselves and the medical staff. In order to assure patients privacy, confidentiality policies were established. However, a confidentiality policy may be broken only in the case the medical staff believes that the patient is a danger to themselves or to others in society. Thesis Statement: The ethics underlying patient confidentiality is periodically questioned in our society due to circumstances that abruptly occur leaving health professionals to decide between right and wrong.
Doctor patient confidentiality, is a fundamental element of the practice of medicine. Patients can expect that doctors and their support staff will hold confidential information about them in confidence, unless the release of the information is required by law or for public interest reasons. Ensuring confidentiality is retained allows doctors to examine their patients and receive all relevant information about their condition without a worry of judgement or sharing of the information.
Consequently, it can be assumed that doctors might tend to avoid such a confession in order to maintain their image of being a “good doctor” (J.Shahidi). Not being a good doctor may eventually lead to doctor’s loss of business and as a result physicians may tend to hide the truth even if it opposes patient autonomy
The doctor patient relationship is an important connection. Doctor-patient confidentiality is based on the idea that a person should not care for medical treatment because they fear the state will share with others.
The writer discusses a situation of the doctor failing to disclose the nature of important medical condition which can jeopardize several of the patient’s family members and puts the doctor at odds with them. The problem is also discussed by Sutrop (2011) who show how protecting the patient’s confidentiality and self- decision capacity has actually caused severe hindrances to the field of scientific development and research.