Theoretical Medicine

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 309–323 | Cite as

Violating confidentiality to warn of a risk of HIV infection: Ethical work in progress

  • Benjamin Freedman
Article

Abstract

The old literature on whether medical confidentiality may be breached to warn a spouse of a risk of contracting syphilis from his/her partner — a deep and rich literature — has become relevant once again in the context of HIV infection and AIDS. This paper examines the reasoning and method employed in: the Catholic approach centered around the patient's (property) right to the secret; a (generic) model of justice, utilizing minimal principles of non-aggression and restitution; and an approach involving the elimination of unstable alternatives: the view that public health officials, but not the spouse, may/must be notified; and, that maintaining that the physician is at liberty to disclose but is not obliged to do so. The theory and method behind confidentiality turns out to be deeper than you might have anticipated.

Key words

AIDS casuistry confidentiality HIV justice medical ethics professional duty rights 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McLaren C. Officials won't warn wife at risk of AIDS that husband is bisexual, doctor says. Toronto Globe and Mail 1989 Sept 20:A1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Regan RE. Professional Secrecy in the Light of Moral Principles (With an Application to Several Important Professions). Washington, DC: Augustinian Press, 1943.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McFadden C. Medical Ethics. Philadelphia, PA: Davis, 1967.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freedman B. A meta-ethics for professional morality. Ethics 1978; 89(1):1–19.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gillon R. AIDS and medical confidentiality. Br Med J 1987; 294:1675–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Medical Association, Board of Trustees. Prevention and control of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: an interim report. JAMA 1987;256:2097–2103.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    British Medical Association. Statement on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). London: British Medical Asosciation, May 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canadian Medical Association. Position: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome Can Med Assoc J 1989; 140:64A–B.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    General Medical Council (England). HIV Infection and AIDS: The Ethical Considerations, London: Geneal Medical Council, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curran WJ. Confidentiality and the prediction of dangerousness in psychiatry: the Tarasoff case. N Eng J Med 1975; 293:285–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Medical Association. Principles of Medical Ethics. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1957.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Ethical issues involved in the growing AIDS crisis. JAMA, 1988; 259:1360–1.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bok S. Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. New York: Vintage, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Freedman
    • 1
  1. 1.McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics, and LawMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations