Health Information and Confidentiality

¶ … Mary have the right to reveal this information to others? Please justify your answer based on what you know about public health and ethics. Health information management ethics do not allow Mary to reveal the information. Medical records are used to aid decision making in clinical health circles. They are used for a range of other processes including service coordination, efficacy of health care, evaluation, legal security, research, accreditation supplications, policy making, regulation, education and a range of others.

It is important to maintain the confidentiality of the information shared by patients with health officers; trust is to be maintained with the patients (Harman, Flite, & Bond, 2012). If such practice is not observed, patients will be wary of sharing information. Consequently, the quality of health care would be compromised (Bord, Burke, & Dudzinski, 2013). Privacy has a range of other benefits apart from the direct health service provision advantages. There is societal value derived from maintaining confidentiality too. It is easier to conduct research when confidentiality is upheld.

People's dignity is also a consideration (Nass, Levit, & Gostin, 2009). Sharing medical health information of patients is permitted only under authorised permission. Health care providers have an obligation to maintain confidentiality of the patient's health information from unauthorised access. Such information can only be shared among members of the healthcare team for finding the best approaches to handle the patient's situation and for future planning, among other purposes (Bord, Burke, & Dudzinski, 2013).

Further, there is a requirement in medical practice that patient information can only be shared after the patient allows the medical care staff to do the same or as directed by the relevant laws. However, physicians can still access such information for purposes of intervention in treatment, or even for administrative reasons. The patient also has a right to access information about their health status. They can also change such information as they deem appropriate in consonance with factual data (Harman, Flite, & Bond, 2012).

In the situation regarding Mary's friend Patricia and her fiance Ron, would Mary be more justified in revealing patient information than in the situation regarding the next-door neighbor? Why or why not? What if Patricia was her sister? Revelation of health information belonging to Ron can be justified because such request came from a person close to both Patricia and Ron. Mary's mother is the one that requested for Ruth's information. Sheer curiosity by the public is not a justifiable ground for revealing patient health information.

Trust between a patient and a healthcare providers is a critical factor. This practice is maintained with the goal of enhancing patient welfare. Moreover, maintaining public confidence has a wider benefit in the general public. It is an important ingredient in the maintenance of public health. In modern medicine, though, there is no absoluteness guaranteed in such confidentiality. Such idealism may, sometimes have to be broken.

The General Medical Council's professional code of conduct spells such exceptions (Blightman, Griffiths, & Danbury, 2014) • Consensual disclosures • Legally mandated disclosures • Disclosure due to public interest (Blightman, Griffiths, & Danbury, 2014) Public interest disclosures The definition of public interest spans public health and crime detection and prevention. Such provision is subjective and is often subject to legal interpretation in court (Blightman, Griffiths, & Danbury, 2014).

Public safety The healthcare personnel in USA have an obligation to open such confidentiality if it involves the need to warn a victim of the potential harm by a subject (Tarassoff vs. University of California Regents [1976] 17 Cal 3d 358). This allowance has provisos attached, including that the doctor takes utmost care not to harm others in the process and tries to balance between duty to society and to individual patient. The societal obligation is determined by the legal closeness of the concerned parties (Palmer vs. Tees HA [1999] EWCA 1533).

Such disclosure can only be warranted if there is sufficient identifiable risk to a person. This means that such disclosure is based on one's professional judgement discretion (Blightman, Griffiths, & Danbury, 2014). Why are privacy and confidentiality so important to patients who receive care and to those who provide care? Does this contradict the mission of public health, when social interests and the interests of individuals come into conflict? It is common for patients to share information with doctors and other health care providers.

Maintaining confidentiality of the shared information is an important factor in the pursuit of positive public health outcomes. If the confidentiality practice is breached, patients are less likely to freely share information. Clearly, confidentiality helps patients to be honest about their conditions and circumstances. Healthcare provision is thus enhanced when there is accurate patient information. Patients may also be encouraged to seek healthcare.

Patients with health conditions with a stigma attached need such confidentiality to ensure that information is not leaked to family, employers or familiar public (Bord, Burke, & Dudzinski, 2013). Whereas there are circumstances when a health care provider of doctor may feel obliged to share information such as in the case of an enquiring spouse, such situations may still not warrant justifiable ground for breaching confidentiality; unless, of course, the spouse is at a clearly identifiable risk of being harmed by the patient. Such.