Introduction
Confidentiality is receiving information that is personal and confidential from an individual and not passing it to another person without the consent of the person you have received information from (Department of Health, 2003). An example is a doctor and his or her patient; the doctor receives information from a patient on his condition, and the patient does not want anyone to know about it. In this case, the doctor should not pass the information about the patient without his or her consent; however, there are circumstances under which the doctor will be forced to pass the information to another person (Williams & Gossett, 2001). This paper will discuss the circumstances when confidentiality should be broken.
Ethical implications of a breach of confidentiality
Health professional are mandated to keep any information that has been revealed in confidential to remain confidential, therefore, it is the duty of the health practitioner to find out which information is confidential or not. In case of a breach of confidentiality, there are ethical implications, which include infringing on one’s privacy, which might be handled by the legal institution. Therefore, the health practitioners should consider any departmental information confidential, unless it is needed for medical purposes (MacDonald, 2006).
The health practitioners should also understand that confidential information is sensitive, and disclosure to another person without the patient’s consent can cause harm to the patient; this is considered an ethical because a health professional should respect and protect the interest of patients.
Ethical principles of confidentiality
Confidentiality demands that information should not be disclosed to another person without the permission or consent of the owner and anyone who respects this rule respects one’s right to self-determination given that it does not affect the right of others (Hyland, 2002). Human beings should not bring suffering to others, it is everyone’s duty to do good and promote well-being; therefore, any decision concerning confidentiality should not cause health risks to the patient or any other person. It is also everyone’s moral obligation to respect the right of others, even the less privileged members in the society; this includes the right to live, own property, which includes confidential information among others (Purtilo & Doherty, 2011).
Reasonable alternative to the dilemma
In the case of Hathaway and Andrea, Hathaway should have respected Andrea’s right to self-determination by not disclosing the information to another person without her consent since keeping quiet could not have infringed on anyone’s right. However, Hathaway, has a moral obligation to do good, and in this case, she should Andrea receive treatment for her to get better; therefore, she should inform her mother who would help her get necessary health care.
Andrea’s rights as a person should be respected regardless of her age; therefore, Hathaway should respect the fact that Andrea wants her condition to remain a secret to the teachers and her fellow students. Hathaway feels that it is good to inform the school administration of the girls’ behavior in the school, which is a good thing to do; however, she should choose another way of informing them without telling Andrea’s condition. This approach is important and involves the application of the ethical framework, which ensures that the right of the patient to confidentiality is respected, and the well being of the society and the patient are taken care (Hanks, 2008).
The ethics committee’s Approach to the dilemma
First, the ethics committee would evaluate the information to find out its effect on others, if keeping the formation will not harm another person, then the committee will respect Andrea’s right to keep her information confidential. The ethics committee then looks at what information will do to Andrea and other people, in this case, keeping quiet might affect the health of the girl, because she cannot seek necessary health care for her condition, therefore, its only good to inform her parents. However, the ethics committee will only proceed after explaining the situation to Andrea, as well as the reason for the break of confidentiality.
The ethics committee understands that the girl contracted the disease following her behavior with the other girls at school; therefore, it would be good to inform the school administration about the behavior of girls in the school, but since the committee cares about the interests of Andrea, they would inform the school administration of the behavior, without revealing Andrea’s condition. However, this would only be the case if Andrea’s condition does not pose a health risk to the fellow students.
Confidentiality is important in medical professional, it assures the patient on secrecy, making him or her willing seek medical care; however, it can be broken to protect the patient, another person or community from harm (Mahlin, 2010). On the other hand, when consenting, health professionals should be discrete on who to consent, what to consent and how to consent; it should be carefully done to protect the interests of the patient, as well as the well-being of the community.
References
Department of Health. (2003). Code of practice on confidentiality, London: DH.
Hanks, R. (2008). The lived experience of nursing advocacy. Nursing Ethics, 15 (4), pp. 468‐477.
Hyland, D. (2002). An exploration of the relationship between patient autonomy and pati ent advocacy: Implications for nursing practice. Nursing Ethics, 9 (5), 472‐482.
MacDonald, H. (2006). Relational ethics and advocacy in nursing: literature review. Jour nal of Advanced Nursing, 57 (2), pp. 119‐126.
Mahlin, M. (2010). Individual patient advocacy, collective responsibility and activism with in professional nursing associations. Nursing Ethics, 17 (2), pp. 247‐254.
Purtilo, R. & Doherty, R. (2011). Ethical dimensions in the health professions. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Williams, C. & Gossett, M. (2001). Nursing communication: Advocacy for the patient or physician? Clinical Nursing Research, 10 (3), 332‐340.