Case Study Analysis

Posted: September 9th, 2013

Case Study Analysis

Name:

Institution:

Date:

Case Study Analysis

1.         The main topic of this reading assignment concerns the understanding of truthfulness and confidentiality in healthcare. The concepts of truthfulness and confidentiality do not always go together, and they sometimes conflict with each other. There is a difference between lies and falsehood. Although telling the truth is important, one should respect the confidentiality that exists in some truths. However much revealing information is important to the patients’ families, the physician has a right and obligation to withhold some of the information.

2.         The authors define and describe some ethical principles in this chapter. A lie is a falsehood told in circumstances where the other person has reasonable expectations of the truth. People have the right to the truth when they need to make informed consent, when they need to make important non-medical decisions, when they need to avoid great evils, and when they have purchased that right. A placebo is anything that physicians use to cause a therapeutic outcome, and it should not have active biological powers. The concept of confidentiality is concerned with keeping secrets. Physicians who consult other physicians should ensure that they maintain confidentiality, and the consulted physicians should maintain the patients’ confidentiality, as well. There are several exceptions to confidentiality, such as commands from statutory laws, legal precedents, peculiar patient-provider relationship, and proportionate reason.

3.         Physicians are not required to reveal information to third parties just because that information will be beneficial to the parties. This is irrespective of whether the third party is the physician’s patient. The physicians have to consider the confidentiality that the patient has placed on them, and how revealing that information will affect the patient. Despite this, the physician has to consider the right of the wife to have such information. In the case, George’s wife only consulted the doctor after she contacted bronchitis. She did not consult him because she experienced gonorrhea symptoms. The doctor did not deceive her since the information was not necessary in this case. If the doctor had found evidence of virulent strains after examining her, then he would have been obliged to tell her the truth due to the seriousness of her condition.

The physician did not deceive George’s wife because, in this case, she did not have any reasonable expectation to truth. She might have had this expectation, had she suspected something based on her symptoms. In addition, the physician has to consider whether the wife has any right to communication. In this case, the wife did not have any right to know of her husband’s condition

The decision to track HIV patients may raise some concerns because it is not only a violation of the patients’ right to privacy, but it also puts the physicians’ confidentiality in doubt. This is unethical, as it reveals the patients confidential information. There are no indications that the HIV patients intend to spread the disease to uninfected people. Moreover, the law has rules regarding intentional spreading of the disease. This case is different from George’s case because it has the potential to harm many people. If George does not have the virulent strain of gonorrhea, then it is possible to cure all the people infected with the disease. However, HIV does not have any cure, and it affects different people in the family and the society, irrespective of whether they are affected by the disease.

Reference:

Garrett, M. T., Baillie, W. H., Garrett, M. R., & McGeehan, F. J. (2010). Health care ethics: Principles and problems, 5 ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall