Husband Confidentiality Cases

The case I chose to discuss will be Case 9, The Case of the Homosexual Husband. This case involved a family physician and his two patients. The family physician was facing a confidentiality dilemma. Confidentiality is the obligation to keep promises and remain loyal to your patients (p. 65, 2012). This case involved a 21-year-old homosexual man requesting a premarital examination. The 21-year-old male, wife to be was another patient of the physicians. This is where the conflict becomes present. The physician was aware of the male patient’s sexuality as being gay, and his history with sexual transmitted diseases. Since, the family physician’s promised confidentiality his duty will be to the man. He must keep his secret, even though it might

Confidentiality is a major key in the ethics code. Once confidentiality is broken, the physician-patient relationship will cease to exist. Confidentiality is important because it allows patients to be more open and honesty with their visits. Breaking confidentiality can cause significant negative effects. The physicians could get charged with violation of patient confidentiality, lose their patients, or even lose their licenses to practice. For example, case 7, the issue with birth control. Doctor Robert Browne, broke his confidentiality agreement and his patient was upset. He was charged with violation of patient confidentiality (p. 59, 2012). The Hippocratic Oath and the British Medical Association code, were still in use, saving him from being convicted. What happens when this code no longer has the power to break the

Consequentialist’s principles are subjective and go along with Hippocratic’s belief, do no harm and benefit the patient. While, duty-based principles are closely related to respect for persons. Respect for persons is defined as duties to the individual (p. 62, 2012). These duties include virtues fidelity, autonomy, veracity, and avoidance of killing. Since, health professionals have their own list of virtues that abide to their laws; the physician would have to determine which ones would apply to this situation. In the end he concluded his duty was to both. He must find out if she knew, while keeping his promise of confidentiality (p. 68, 2012). He was trapped in this situation because the Hippocratic Approach caters to both sides of the argument. He had to ask the tough question and determine what was the best approach. This lead me to ask the question, what is the moral thing to