Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 347–358 | Cite as

Disclosure of Past Crimes: An Analysis of Mental Health Professionals’ Attitudes Towards Breaching Confidentiality

  • Tenzin Wangmo
  • Violet Handtke
  • Bernice Simone Elger
Original Research


Ensuring confidentiality is the cornerstone of trust within the doctor–patient relationship. However, health care providers have an obligation to serve not only their patient’s interests but also those of potential victims and society, resulting in circumstances where confidentiality must be breached. This article describes the attitudes of mental health professionals (MHPs) when patients disclose past crimes unknown to the justice system. Twenty-four MHPs working in Swiss prisons were interviewed. They shared their experiences concerning confidentiality practices and attitudes towards breaching confidentiality in prison. Qualitative analysis revealed that MHPs study different factors before deciding whether a past crime should be disclosed, including: (1) the type of therapy the prisoner-patient was seeking (i.e., whether it was court-ordered or voluntary), (2) the type of crime that is revealed (e.g., a serious crime, a crime of a similar nature to the original crime, or a minor crime), and (3) the danger posed by the prisoner-patient. Based on this study’s findings, risk assessment of dangerousness was one of the most important factors determining disclosures of past crimes, taking into consideration both the type of therapy and the crime involved. Attitudes of MHPs varied with regard to confidentiality rules and when to breach confidentiality, and there was thus a lack of consensus as to when and whether past crimes should be reported. Hence, legal and ethical requirements concerning confidentiality breaches must be made clear and known to physicians in order to guide them with difficult cases.


Confidentiality Disclosure Prison Forensic doctor Past crimes 



We thank all participants in the study for their time and commitment. We are grateful to A. Taberska, M. Ummel, and A. Eytan for their comments on the interview guide; V. Lauf, M. Ducotterd, C. Brueggen, and A. Taberska for their help with the interviews and transcriptions; and B. Gravier and A. Eytan for their general support.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding Support

The study was funded by the Käthe-Zingg-Schwichtenberg Fund of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences.


  1. Anfang, S.A., and P.S. Appelbaum. 1996. Twenty years after Tarasoff: Reviewing the duty to protect. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 4(2): 67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelbaum, P.S. 1985. Tarasoff and the clinician: Problems in fulfilling the duty to protect. The American Journal of Psychiatry 142(4): 425–429.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Appelbaum, P.S. 2002. Privacy in psychiatric treatment: Threats and responses. The American Journal of Psychiatry 159(11): 1809–1818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appelbaum, P.S., and A. Meisel. 1986. Therapists’ obligations to report their patients’ criminal acts. The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 14(3): 221–230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Birmingham, L., S. Wilson, and G. Adshead. 2006. Prison medicine: Ethics and equivalence. The British Journal of Psychiatry 188(January): 4–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonner, R., and L.D. Vandecreek. 2006. Ethical decision making for correctional mental health providers. Criminal Justice and Behavior 33(4): 542–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruggen, M.C., A. Eytan, B. Gravier, and B.S. Elger. 2013. Medical and legal professionals’ attitudes towards confidentiality and disclosure of clinical information in forensic settings: A survey using case vignettes. Medicine, Science and the Law 53(3): 132–148.Google Scholar
  8. Bryman, A., and R.G. Burgess, eds. 1994. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers. 1998. Recommendation No. R (98) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning the ethical and organizational aspects of health care in prison. Accessed November 10, 2013.
  11. Elger, B.S. 2005. Attitudes of future lawyers and psychologists to the use of genetic testing for criminal behavior. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14(3): 329–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elger, B.S. 2008. Towards equivalent health care of prisoners: European soft law and public health policy in Geneva. Journal of Public Health Policy 29(2): 192–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elger, B.S. 2009a. Factors influencing attitudes towards medical confidentiality among Swiss physicians. Journal of Medical Ethics 35(8): 517–524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elger, B.S. 2009b. Violations of medical confidentiality: Opinions of primary care physicians. British Journal of General Practice 59(567): e344–e352.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Elger, B.S., V. Handtke, and T. Wangmo. Unpublished manuscript. Paternalistic breaches of confidentiality in prison: Mental health professionals’ practice, attitudes, and justifications.Google Scholar
  16. Elger, B.S., and T.W. Harding. 2005. Avoidable breaches of confidentiality: A study among students of medicine and of law. Medical Education 39(3): 333–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elger, B.S., V. Handtke, and T. Wangmo. In press. Informing patients about limits to confidentiality: A qualitative study in prisons. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  18. Eytan, A., D.M. Haller, H. Wolff, et al. 2011. Psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress and somatic comorbidity among remand prisoners in Switzerland. International Journal of Law Psychiatry 34(1): 13–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fazel, S., and J. Baillargeon. 2011. The health of prisoners. The Lancet 377(9769): 956–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. The Federal Assembly the Swiss Confederation. (2014) Swiss Criminal Code. Accessed April 30, 2014.
  21. Felthous, A.R. 2006. Warning A potential victim of A person’s dangerousness: Clinician’s duty or victim’s right? The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 34(3): 338–348.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. General Medical Council. 2009. Confidentiality. Accessed November 10, 2013.
  23. IACFP, Practice Standards Committee. 2010. Standards for psychology services in jails, prisons, correctional facilities, and agencies. Criminal Justice and Behavior 37(7): 749–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konrad, N. 2010. Ethical issues in forensic psychiatry in penal and other correctional facilities. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 23(5): 467–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kottow, M.H. 1986. Medical confidentiality: An intransigent and absolute obligation. Journal of Medical Ethics 12(3): 117–122.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Margolin, J., and R. Mester. 2007. Inverted Tarasoff. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences 44(1): 71–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Melamed, Y., E. Or, D. Rudinski, et al. 2011. Responsibility of the therapist for the patients’ actions (Tarasoff Rules): Position of the psychiatrists. The Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences 48(2): 107–110.Google Scholar
  28. Mills, M.J., G. Sullivan, and S. Eth. 1987. Protecting third parties: A decade after Tarasoff. The American Journal of Psychiatry 144(1): 68–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Niveau, G. 2007. Relevance and limits of the principle of “equivalence of care” in prison medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(10): 610–613.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinta, E.R. 2009. Decisions to breach confidentiality when prisoners report violations of institutional rules. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 37(2): 150–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinta, E.R. 2010. Tarasoff duties in prisons: Community standards with certain twists. The Psychiatric Quarterly 81(2): 177–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pont, J., H. Stover, and H. Wolff. 2012. Dual loyalty in prison health care. American Journal of Public Health 102(3): 475–480.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodriguez, M.A., S.P. Wallace, N.H. Woolf, and C.M. Mangione. 2006. Mandatory reporting of elder abuse: Between a rock and a hard place. Annals of Family Medicine 4(5): 403–409.Google Scholar
  34. Schutte, P. 1995. Forensic physicians and medical confidentiality: A brief summary. Journal of Clinical and Forensic Medicine 2(2): 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silverman, D. 1993. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Strauss, A.L., and J.M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. United Nations. 1982. Principles of medical ethics relevant to the role of health personnel, particularly physicians, in the protection of prisoners and detainees against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Accessed November 10, 2013.
  38. Wilper, A.P., S. Woolhandler, J.W. Boyd, et al. 2009. The health and health care of US prisoners: Results of A nationwide survey. American Journal of Public Health 99(4): 666–672.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. World Psychiatric Association. 1996. Madrid declaration on ethical standards for psychiatric practice. Accessed November 10, 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tenzin Wangmo
    • 1
  • Violet Handtke
    • 1
  • Bernice Simone Elger
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Biomedical EthicsUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations