Hospitals hold an ethics clause against sharing patient’s information against third parties. The understanding is that no matter what the patient speaks to the doctor, the doctor is not allowed to share the information with third parties. In the article, “Should I Protect a Patient at the expense of an Innocent Stranger”, it was a spoken agreement between a victim who was involved in a serious offense and the physician not to share any information. In this situation, the doctor makes a decision that this was not an actual medical case, but focused on the relationship to the cause of the problem as an extension of the information held by the doctor (Klosterman n.p). The act of the doctor sharing the information regarding the patient on the basis of the problem was against the hospital ethics and would affect the confidentiality of the patient. The act was against the doctor’s ethics and hence was inappropriate.
Initially, the doctor had promised the patient to remain confidential and vowed not to break the commitment but went on to betray his promise. The author of the article advises the doctor to call back the patient and advise him to confess his offense to the right channels. The author’s advice may be inappropriate since the doctor has already broken the confidence of the patient and hence it would be difficult to advise him more to report to the relevant authorities (Klosterman n.p). It is impossible for a criminal to surrender themselves to the authorities due to their nature of the character and search for freedom. As a professional in his field, the doctor should have stuck to his duties and stick with the code of ethics which govern his profession of confidentiality.
Work cited
Klosterman, Chuck. "Should I Protect A Patient At The Expense Of An Innocent Stranger?." Nytimes.com. N.p., 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2018.
