Article Text
Abstract
Medical personnel sometimes face a seeming conflict between a duty to respect patient confidentiality and a duty to warn or protect endangered third parties. The conventional answer to dilemmas of this sort is that, in certain circumstances, medical professionals have an obligation to breach confidentiality. Kenneth Kipnis has argued, however, that the conventional wisdom on the nature of medical confidentiality is mistaken. Kipnis argues that the obligation to respect patient confidentiality is unqualified or absolute, since unqualified policies can save more lives in the long run. In this paper, I identify the form of Kipnis’s argument and present a challenge to it. I conclude that, as matters stand now, a qualified confidentiality policy is the more rational choice.
- confidentiality/privacy
- HIV infection and aids
- truth disclosure
- codes of/position statements on professional ethics
- clinical ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Healthcare professionals’ responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease
- Parental procreative obligation and the categorisation of disease: the case of cystic fibrosis
- Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and rational choice under risk or uncertainty
- Dotting the I's and crossing the T's: autonomy and/or beneficence? The ‘fetus as a patient’ in maternal–fetal surgery
- Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research
- Rescuing the duty to rescue
- Relational ethical approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic
- Free riding and organ donation
- Kant on euthanasia and the duty to die: clearing the air
- Reporting of gunshot wounds by doctors in emergency departments: A duty or a right? Some legal and ethical issues surrounding breaking patient confidentiality