Accessing Patient Pathology Details

Nurses have ethical and legal obligations to protect the privacy of people requiring and receiving care. This encompasses treating as confidential information gathered for professional purposes only (Privacy Act, 1988), therefore in regards to the case study this registered nurse has failed to uphold her professionalism and failed to comply with her Code of Conduct and has accessed his medical files in order for her to gather his personal information, then proceeded to message the partner of the patient to inform her of his diagnosis therefore, breaching her duty of care to the patient – even though she is not

The elements of the principles of confidentiality can be broken down into four separate categories: (1) Information provided by the patient is kept confidential unless consent from the patient has otherwise been given—unless it has direct legal implications or endangers the general public. (2) Informed Consent: is given freely, because the correct information has been supplied and the patient has sufficient information on the impacts involved. Information is otherwise given out on a need to know basis. (3) Duty of Care: Information is given out in order to protect the safety and health of others and the patient. Legal and general public health fall under this category. (4) Documenting Decisions: Consultations and actions that lead to

“Confidentiality is the ethical principle or legal right that a physician or other health professional will hold secret all information relating to a patient, unless the patient give consent permitting disclosures” (American Heritage Medical Dictionary, 2007). All information about a patient should remain confidential and private. The only health care professionals that should have access to medical records are the ones who are directly working with the patient. Patients develop bonds with health care workers and even put their lives in the hands of strangers, with feelings of hope and trust. When this bond is broken, not only does it directly affect relationships, but also the quality of care. In the event of that taking place, there could be a

This request from Ron rises a lot of issues related to privacy and confidentiality. The Privacy Amendment Act 2012 (SA), refers to what information is collected and how it is managed in a secure matter in a healthcare setting. Nurses have to comply with confidentiality rights to a patient. This means they cannot disclose information about patients to anyone that isn’t authorised to have that information (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, 2013). According to legal and ethical rights, this a very unreasonable request from Ron as it breaches rules and puts the patient’s safety at risk. Jess has acted inappropriately and could be prosecuted for her actions. Information about a patient and their healthcare needs is only available to medical

Breaches in confidentiality can have a harmful impact on information causing serious implications in potential patient outcomes. It is the duty of a cancer registry professional to keep patients information private and used for only the means it is intended. Patients have the right to privacy and their medical record should not be shared without the consent of the patient. The question formed for research involves the role of a Health Information Management (HIM) practitioner in regards to confidentiality within the code of ethics of cancer registries. Protected Health Information (PHI) is personal information in a patient’s chart that is private and not to be shared without consent from that patient. “Under HIPAA, Protected Health Information

I agree with you that there was a conflict of interest which caused Dr. Wilson to continue with the testing even though a participant died from complications. Based on your explanations, I agree that sanctity of human life should outweigh the other principles. Plus, ethics demands that we never allow scientific examination to undermine the interests and inherent value of the distinctive human being who unselfishly enroll in such research.

This advocates for the use of broad or blanket consent. “This empowers researchers or keepers of the data or tissues to use the material in any way they see fit with no conditions applied” (Bahadur 2004). The only course of action patients have, to obtain any monetary compensation is to sue on the grounds of lack of informed consent. This is due to researchers arguing that they are not capable of exploiting the patient since experimentation on an extracted cell does not harm or alter the health of the patient. This is evident in both Lacks’ and Moore’s cases, where both individual received “recognition” for their contribution and not fiscal compensation.

There are several ethical implications to consider in regards to a breach of confidentiality, especially when considering cases within the healthcare industry. Nathanson's article, "Bioethics on NBC's ER: Betraying trust or providing good care? When is it OK to break confidentiality" explores some of the more salient ramifications. One of the fundamental components of this article is a case study in which a teenager, Andrea, has developed a form of cancer related to sexual activity and a medical professional, Nurse Hathaway, has learned of her condition. Professional entities such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council have strict codes about what information these practitioners can and cannot give out regarding their patients. This case study, then, alludes to the central issue at play in such an instance of a breach of confidentiality. If the nurse's true obligation is to the welfare of her patients, is it in the best interest of a patient for nurses to reveal their confidentiality to individuals and organizations that can ultimately help them, or should the nurse maintain her confidentiality agreement even if doing so will ultimately reduce the patient's chance for assistance with a medical condition?

To begin, I will address the scenario in which the concepts of paternalism, autonomy, and confidentiality will be discussed. A patient has come to their physician in order to get a basic genetic testing screen, upon review of the screen the physician finds the patient to be genetically predisposed to multiple diseases and/ or illnesses. The scenario can now take two turns being that the physician is facing the decision of whether or not to tell the patient and then if the patient is told whether or not to tell those also at risk if the patient refuses to do so themselves.

For those who chose to keep the information confidential I find this to be a selfish decision. However, as a healthcare professional it is important to avoid judging the patient. I must provide respect and support. Education is a

Consent is a cornerstone of human research ethics and in doctor-patient relationships. The need to obtain a patient’s full consent prior to participating in a clinical trial of investigational products is increasingly heralded as an ethical panacea counteracting the potential danger of paternalistic and autocratic practices (Corrigan 2003).

Patient confidentiality is a sensitive issue. So the question whether breaching of patient’s confidentially in certain circumstance is justified? Then it will depend on the circumstances that was involved. In the Australian Medical Association Code of Ethics under the section of the doctor and the patient with subsection of patient care, it is stated that “Maintain your patient 's confidentiality. Exceptions to this must be taken very seriously. They may include where there is a serious risk to the patient or another person, where required by law, where part of approved research, or where there are overwhelming societal interests.” (1)

Yeo (2010) point out that the possibility to retain some information from patients has been ordered for long in Australian law, as in other countries for the benefit of the patient. This has now been combined with the greater autonomy acknowledged to the patient in many jurisdictions. Although a clinical approach reveals that loyalty should guide the patient-physician relationship, there are still some situations in which information consent and truth telling may be controversial: in some circumstances, the physician should or may not tell the truth. The case at hand poses a dilemma regarding the right to know (Cherry & Jacob 2008).

In medicine one of the things every patient is entitled to, no matter what, is their privacy. Since ancient times the privacy between a doctor and a patient has been somewhat of sacred thing. The patient has the right to release their health information to whomever they please. Even for doctors to access a patient’s medical history there has to be consent from the patient. In Mair’s article she reports about the case PD v Harvey in which PD upon asking for her future husband’s (FH) HIV test results was denied access because of lack of consent from FH. FH because of his right to confidentiality, despite having the disease, was able to lie and forge a pathology report which reported his HIV status as negative and in turn PD was lead to believe that FH actually received a negative result. If PD had been allowed the right to view the positive result or maybe even if the doctors would have taken into consideration her well-being PD could have avoided being infected (2009). Before testing a patient for HIV/AIDS a doctor should consult the patient in this consultation the patient should be educated about the disease, the testing process, and actions to be taken upon a positive result, including disclosure to sexual

Michael H., a 68-year-old man, was admitted for exploratory surgery of his abdomen. He is frail, and his attending physician describes him as “emotionally labile.” Marcy R. is a social worker at BFL General Hospital, who is assigned to the unit that Michael H has been admitted. After Michael’s surgery, Marcy R. was approached by Michael H.’s daughter, Ellen B. in which Ellen has told Marcy that her father’s physician had just informed her that the lab report from the exploratory surgery shows that her father has terminal cancer. Ellen said that she and the family are in shock and they have decided that they not want the hospital staff to tell her father about the terminal nature of his cancer once he recovers from anesthesia. In this essay, I will discuss the ethical dilemma of “to tell Michael or not to tell him he has terminal cancer. He has the right to confidentiality by not withholding information from him when he has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, informed consent, and self-determination.