The Confidentiality Of Truth In Immanuel Kant's Case

Currently, most people generally accept a doctor’s word as truth and do not question him or her. When it comes to the medical field, patients can often feel overwhelmed by all the confusing medical terms being thrown at them, so they tend to sit back and do as the doctor says. Healthcare professionals sometimes take advantage of this fact and withhold important information from their patients. For instance, a study conducted by Lisa Lezzoni, MD, and her peers states that more than half of physicians lied to their patients about their diagnosis to put a more positive spin on it (Lezzoni, Rao, DesRoches, Vogeli, and Campbell). Healthcare professionals should disclose to the patient any information pertaining to the patient.

Confidentiality in the Healthcare arena can be simply defined as the moral and ethical duty of the Practitioner to keep all the patient’s bio-data under lock and key, and offer a disclosure of those facts that the patient is legally mandated to disclose or deems fit to enhance their positive health outcome. According to the Segen’s Medical Dictionary, “Confidentiality is the ethical principle that a physician may not reveal any information disclosed in the course of medical care, unless the patient who disclosed that information poses a threat to him, herself or others’’

Confidentiality is considered a core value or principal in the medical practice. Confidentiality is a right that all people have within the medical field. This is the requirement of health care providers to keep a person’s information exclusive unless the patient or the person consents in the form of a release to share that information with other people that practice. Usually the consent is given when a doctor wants to consult with a different doctor for example. In this case it would be for the betterment of the person.

Kant argues the it is never permissible to lie as it is immoral. He believes a lie harms humanity and our entire social life. He then states "it is never permissible to lie, even if by lying we could save a friend from being murdered. Although Kant believes it is immoral to lie, it may sometimes be immoral to speak the truth. When speaking the truth it may improve their life but that is not always the case. If we speak the truth to cause pointless embarrassment or harm to one another it is just as bad as lying to them. The truth is sometimes more damaging than useful and will make that person rethink of what they have been doing and a worse life experience. Sometimes the truth should be avoided if it is to cause pointless pain and

First, disclosure of information to the patient will sometimes increase the likelihood of depression and physical deterioration, or result in the choice of medically inoptimal treatment. Second, disclosure of information is therefore sometimes likely to be detrimental to the patient’s health, and perhaps hasten his death. Third, health and prolonged life can be assumed to have priority among preferences for patients who place themselves under physicians’ care. Fourth, Worsening health or hastening death can therefore be assumed to be contrary to patients’ own true value orderings. Lastly, paternalism is therefore justified: doctor may sometimes override patients’ prima facie rights to information about their risks and treatments or about their own conditions in order to prevent harm (Vaughn, 96.)

I enjoyed reading your DQ 1 post this week, and it is the patients right to choose, but only if they are deemed competent. They also have to respond willingly. It is also important to understand that telling patients the truth no matter what even if the patient is fatally ill is what is required out of a health care professional. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it is considered the standard of care in the United States (U.S.). To preserve and enhance the patient's autonomy the Patient Self-determination Act was enacted. However, some might say that doctors responsibilities and family integrity are being set to the side ( ). But I think otherwise because it is our right to choose what we believe would be

Simplistic assertions about telling the truth may not be helpful to patients or physicians in times of trouble. The principle of respect for autonomy, suggests that patients should not be misled or left uniformed. Patients, can be empowered to safeguard their interests when told the truth. He truth calls for tact and decency. Put oneself in the patient’s position. Maximal physiological function or in this case , mere survival. The obligation to disclose relevant, reasonably expected truths is not absolute but prima facie. Under a pluralist moral framework, which acknowledges a pluralityof moral values, there may be other considerations that trump the duty to tell the truth. If telling the truth is likely to endanger the life of a frail patient, for example, then my obligation of non-maleficence may trump my duty to tell the

Honesty; a responsibility crowned upon each person. In any circumstances, lying is never necessary nor acceptable. There are many pieces of evidence to support this claim in the articles “Rejecting All Lies: Immanuel Kant” by Sissela Bok and “Brad Blanton: Honestly, Tell the Truth” by Barbara Ballinger. Unlike honesty, lying harms one’s worth and mental state.

Everything discussed between a doctor and patient has to be confidential. This means whatever the patient tells the GP, the GP is then not allowed to go and discuss this with other people. If a GP was to break this right then they are disrespecting the rights of the patient and there could be consequences for the GP. However sometimes it is difficult for a GP to keep that confidentiality if he thinks the patient is in any danger, for example a GP has been told in confidence by a vulnerable elderly women that her carer has hit her, the GP would either try and persuade his patient to tell someone about the incident or he could contact social services to make a safeguarding referral. Doctors should respect the patients wishes and keep the confidentiality

Critical Discussion In Should Doctors Tell the Truth, Collins’ believes that every physician should not tell patients the truth. I disagree with Collin’s argument because I am going to argue that physician’s should be ethical and tell the truth to their patients. Collins’ reasons for his argument come from is two premises which are that patients do not want to hear the truth, and if someone does not want the truth then you should not force it on them. My reasons for my counter-argument come from my premises which are that patients want to her the truth, and telling the truth is being ethical.

“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

In this situation, the choice the doctor makes is vital. Whether or not he tells the patient his condition will not change the patient's condition, it will remain the same. In “A Small Good Thing” the Weiss was on the opposite side of this dilemma, their child was in an accident and they were told everything was fine when it was not. The Weisses were told numerous time that the child was “okay” or that he is likely to survive when in reality he was fighting for his life. In this situation, the Weiss were lied to so that they would not be

The main focus of the article is to look at the absolute value of patients’ confidentiality. Blightman et al. look at the pros and cones of breaking patient’s confidentiality and conclude that a breached of confidentiality is in order when it is necessary to obtain consent, as required by law, or when it is in the best interest of the public. The article is useful to my subject, since it examines in details the main issues involving the safeguard of patients’ information. In addition, the authors define confidential information, looks at breaching confidentiality for consent, audits, protection of children, disclosure to family and friends, statutory disclosure, prevention of crime, public interest, public safety, public health, and disclosure to the media. The paper publication is Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain, which s a joint publication of the British Journal of Anaesthesia and The Royal College of Anaesthetists in the UK. It is also the official journal of The Faculty of Pain Medicine and The College of Anaesthetists of Ireland. Publication in such an esteemed journal requires utterly scrutinized of reliability and credibility of the information provided. I found the article educational and thorough in its coverage of aspects of breach of patient information. It is also well written and easy to understand.

However, a Kantian doctor will say that is immoral and he should tell the truth about the person’s diagnosis. It is the duty of the doctor to be honest to his/her patients. Also, we should respect a patient’s own right to decide for his/her life. We cannot use the patient as mean to achieve other ends which is the greatest happiness of the people involved. One may argue that utilitarian consider long term consequences if doctor lie. Although this is true, we must not forget sometime long term consequence is not uncovered. When long term consequences are not known, we cannot make a moral decision, where as Kant’s approach concern about the duty of doctor instead of outcome of the action.

Doctors think that they have the right not to tell the truth to their patients because of their paternalistic view. They point at patients’ misunderstanding of diagnosis because of the esoteric information and patients’ lacking of making best choices due to their illnesses or medicine to support this view. Although these are true, doctors just think for one side and they generalize it. To go into further detail, knowing the truth is a