Confidentiality is an important matter across various different professional fields, including in medicine, finance, business, law, education, government, counseling and technology. In some cases, people may be fined, sued or even subject to legal punishments such as incarceration if confidentiality is breached. However, the social workers are required to disclose confidential information about their client without his/her consent if the individual threatens to harm himself/herself, or others. Basically, this action limits a client’s right to self-determination against his/her wishes. Yet, the social worker would be ask to breach confidentiality agreements when one is pursuing involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of a troubled client; or social contact with a former client (Company, 2016).
There is a professional standards of practice to guide them in preventing harm. Hospital staff should sensibly ensure that no harm comes to a patient under their care. To withhold necessary treatments from violent patients simply imply that there is an intention to cause harm, perhaps, indirectly (Staunton & Chiarella, 2017). In law, there are three elements that constitute a negligent action - the duty of care is owed to the patient, the duty of care has been breached through inaction, and through this inaction, physical or financial harm has been caused.
The tem ethics refers to the moral principles that guide a person’s behavior, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of their actions. In the field of nursing, these moral principles govern the relationship between the nurse and the patient, members of the healthcare team, and society at large. Nurses must constantly question whether a certain procedure or course of treatment is in the best interest of the patient. When viewing the film “Miss Evers’ Boys”, it was clear that the doctors, researchers, and even Miss Evers were not acting in the best interest of all the patients. This movie depicted true events of a study that took place in Macon County, Alabama, in 1932.
Patients experience different health problems hence they want to get adequate diagnostic facilities and drugs in the hospital. They did not want to be referred in the private sector to get diagnostic facilities and drugs since private facilities are relatively costly. The reason to come to the hospital is to get their problems to be known by the health care provider by getting adequate laboratory investigations and get appropriate drugs in the hospital compound. Getting services of lab investigations and appropriate drugs in the hospital compound is related to fulfilling patient needs. Patients expect important diagnostics and drugs should be avail in the hospital compound.
Therapeutic privilege is the idea that if the health care provider discloses information to a patient it may harm them more than help them. The concept of therapeutic privilege is tricky because it must be well documented that omitting the information is in the patient’s best interest. Also, in most cases, therapeutic privilege does not completely overrule informed consent. The health care provider must provide any information to the patient that they judge not to cause harm to the patient. For example, they may not disclose the diagnosis immediately but may explain and gain consent for the preferred treatment option.
It is noted that confidentiality precludes marking and vilification of patients. By keeping up the factor of confidentiality, patients can be secured from segregation and stereotyping practices of individuals around them. Carter, et al (2015) expressed that the vast majority of the patients experience segregation, financial decimation, or social disgrace just because of the confidentiality breaches. For that reason, in this point of view, healthcare service providers play an imperative part in securing patient 's private data from rupturing and uncovering. Faden, et al (2013) stated that doctors and physician must conduct partner notice in a secret way to keep away from infringement of their patient 's entitlement to security and decrease possible discrimination and
Jones possible harm caused to his patients, and colleagues due to his stress, anxiety, inability to focus, lateness, and more regardless if it was unintentional. Counselors, psychologists, and those in the helping profession must be open and able to identify when they need to take a break or get help in order to be well enough to help someone else. Which leads to the third ethical code that is relevant to Dr. Jones situation, and that is ethical standard 2.03. Ethical standard 2.03 is titled maintaining competence, and states that Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence. Competence is vital to ongoing self-care and wellness that is necessary for mental health professionals to able to proficiently provide assistance to those who are in
Patients have a right to complain about the doctor's refusal to the Management. Provision of Treatment requires patient’s choice and informed consent. Even if a patient has signed a general consent clause, the patient can still refuse medical treatment or procedures. However, in exceptional or emergency situations a doctor may be legally justified in performing surgery or providing treatment without the patient's consent. The patient should be competent and capable of making such a decision to give a consent.
The Doctrine of Doing & Allowing essentially outlines a lens that aids in drawing a distinction between doing something to cause the outcome, or allowing something that leads to an identical outcome. In this particular case, the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing aided the supreme court in rejecting the claim made by this case as a parallel can be found between a patient requesting assisted suicide through lethal medical treatment and a patient refusing to be put on a medical treatment such as life-support or some other form of treatment that the profession utilizes to prolong the process of death. (Vacco v. Quill, p. 423). J.J. Thomson’s concerns with the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing are quite complicated as he attempts to dig a bit deeper into the revised version that had been altered to incorporate both killing, allowing or letting die, “active euthanasia and passive euthanasia” (Thomson, pg. 500).
When referring to the scenario Mr. Michael Grigio (See Appendix A), the primary issue is that Michael and his family has conflicting emotions towards the results of the test and diagnosis. It is an ethical problem because Amir’s morals conflict with the family’s ethical views. In this situation Amir has to decide whether or not he wants to tell Michael the truth. In order to provide a response we can use relational ethics. The ethical issue at hand is whether the nurse should respect the family’s wishes or disclose the truth to the patient.
There is a controversial issue in regards to the violation of the HIPAA privacy rule concerning a client who was received at a small town hospital emergency rule. As a privacy officer, this issue has been bought to my attention. HIPPA violations are serious offenses, and ultimately, it is my responsibility to take corrective actions to resolve this matter upon this investigation. HIPAA’s purpose, Is to protect the privacy of health information concerning a client or an employee.
By having these laws in place, everyone is protected. They are preventing the therapist from getting malpractice suits filed against them if their patient does harm someone. They are protecting third parties, because by being informed, they can take precautions in protecting themselves instead of being blindsided like Tatiana Tarasoff was. The laws also protect the patient because they know ahead of time what they should and shouldn 't say in therapy in order to not have their confidentiality breached.
Especially when the parents are unable to understand the dangers or refuse treatment. And if the safety of the child’s life is at risk, the hospital must report it to the authorities. This would allow the use of child protective services on either grounds of neglect or imminent danger. This would then allow a prominent legal guardian to take place and medical treatment can swiftly be treated as reports are being made. This approach may seem very plausible due to the nature of the case being mainly based on child negligence.