BREACHING CONFIDENTIALITY

Breaching Confidentiality



Breaching Confidentiality to Protect Others- Case

Introduction

The most significant feature of any counselling relationship is Confidentiality. It has been considered as the most widely ethical standard according to the American Counselling Association 1995 and American Mental Health Counsellors Association 2000. According to the author Collins and Knowles who stated that confidentiality has been argued that effective counselling has been comprised lacking confidentiality assurance, nevertheless it has also been increasingly approved that confidentiality is discretionary.

Confidentiality multifariously granted lawful and official right of clients and a most important accountability of counsellor of mental health charged with making professional judgments that protect clients. Client health reports that may be harmful to himself or to other need counsellor professional judgment in order to determine best thing for client which signify protecting or breaching confidentiality. According to the Act on professions of doctor, the doctor has a duty to maintain the confidentiality of information related to the patient, and obtained in connection with his profession. This is the general rule, under which it should be noted that not only that the physician is not required, but is not entitled to disclose such information.

In such cases, disclosure of confidential information may occur only when necessary. So in this case we are dealing with a situation in which confidentiality may be a danger to life or health of the patient or others should be assessed taking into account the specific situation. In fact, the decision to break confidentiality and transfer of information come in t he account of the doctor (Lucassen A., & Parker M., 2010, pp. 1507).

Case Scenario

In this case Bob has visited the local Trust hospital where his counsellor Dr Gomez informed him regarding the HIV positive. Dr Gomez advised Bob to inform his sexual partner regarding his HIV positive and his course of treatment. Bob has been in relationship with Sue and expecting a baby within 2 months. Previously he had been in a series of sexual relationship. Frequent visit to the clinic it was clear that he had not informed Sue reading his HIV positive status. Dr Gomez was aware of the baby deliver and recommended Bob that steps should be taken to evaluate whether Sue is HIV positive and whether baby is at risk in so that necessary steps should taken to avoid further risk. Bob rejected to tell Sue or else he would discontinue the course of treatment.

Issues That Should Be Considered

It is the principle that personal information of a person should not be disclose with the consent of that person and this principle is known as principle of respect for autonomy. In some cases, though the autonomy of another person might be at risk and can be an issue like in this case Sue and other previous sexual partners along with the baby. If this information of Bob HIV positive status did not revelled might limit the capability regarding decision making of treatment and lifestyle (By, 1997, pp. B8).

Maintaining the confidentiality of the personal information might the ...