Medical and legal professionals’ attitudes towards confidentiality and disclosure of clinical information in forensic settings: a survey using case vignettes

Author:

Bruggen Marie-Charlotte1,Eytan Ariel2,Gravier Bruno3,Elger Bernice S4

Affiliation:

1. University Centre of Legal Medicine of Geneva and Lausanne, University of Geneva, Switzerland

2. Unit of Penitentiary Psychiatry, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland

3. Service of Penitentiary Medicine and Psychiatry, University Hospital Centre and University of Lausanne, Switzerland

4. Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel; University Centre of Legal Medicine of Geneva and Lausanne, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Abstract

Objective When potentially dangerous patients reveal criminal fantasies to their therapists, the latter must decide whether this information has to be transmitted to a third person in order to protect potential victims. We were interested in how medical and legal professionals handle such situations in the context of prison medicine and forensic evaluations. We aimed to explore the motives behind their actions and to compare these professional groups. Method A mail survey was conducted among medical and legal professionals using five fictitious case vignettes. For each vignette, participants were asked to answer questions exploring what the professional should do in the situation and to explain their justification for the chosen response. Results A total of 147 questionnaires were analysed. Agreement between participants varied from one scenario to another. Overall, legal professionals tended to disclose information to a third party more easily than medical professionals, the latter tending to privilege confidentiality and patient autonomy over security. Perception of potential danger in a given situation was not consistently associated with actions. Conclusion Professionals’ opinions and attitudes regarding the confidentiality of potentially dangerous patients differ widely and appear to be subjectively determined. Shared discussions about clinical situations could enhance knowledge and competencies and reduce differences between professional groups.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Law,Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Cited by 7 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3