Mary’s father is not a patient. However, he is compatible with Mary and is therefore expected to donate a kidney. A patient refers to an individual who is either receiving or registered to receive medical treatment in a healthcare institution. Confidentiality agreement applies to the patients only. Therefore, confidentiality agreement does not apply to Mary’s father in this case. Moreover, the father’s decision to keep the secret from his family instead of volunteering to save his daughter is ethically unjustifiable. Further, it sounds as if the father is absconding his duty to care. It is the responsibility of every father to protect his children from harm (Badzek et al., 2013). The father had that opportunity, but all that he thinks of doing is hiding because of fear of an operation. Therefore, the doctor’s decision to keep the secret is not a way of protecting confidentiality.
In matters of confidentiality, the law advises on absolute privacy which is something that is not achievable in all circumstances. There are certain times that permit breaching confidentiality agreements. In this case, the life of the patient is at stake, and the kidney transplant is key to her survival. If the child dies, the blame will be the father because he has a kidney that matches the daughters and yet he willingly denied (Duncan, Hall, and Knowles, 2015). Being able to save the life of the child gives the father a moral duty of care which he cannot avoid. Telling the truth, in this case, is necessary as it outweighs the right of confidentiality. The doctor should be able to understand this. The doctor should ask critical questions regarding the potential death of the child and a possible solution to the problem.
The health care institution has an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of information about their clients. Parties that are not involved in the treatment of the customer have no business being there and looking at the records of the patient. Dr. Curious going through the files of the patients in the hospital in the name of them being friends is a breach of the contract and therefore, warrants punishment. If the administration does not do anything, then it puts the entire organization on a dangerous path where they can be sued. If a client learns of this, he has evidence and motive to support his or her case in court. At this juncture, it will not only be Dr. Curious in front of the firing line but the entire organization for not taking proper action to deal with the case. It is a case of ignorance on the part of the administration (Hiriscau et al., 2014).
The reason that the administration’s inaction is just a vague excuse. It presents a case of favoritism where the administration holds the doctor in favor over the nurses. Therefore, they are not willing to deal with the doctor’s bad behavior. Moreover, it further worsen the situation given the fact that the administration is unaware of the laws that govern the confidentiality of practices in the country (Hiriscau et al., 2014). Confidentiality is an important attribute in the provision of quality health care which means that an organization breaching that contract is providing care that is below the demands of the Constitution. Therefore, the administration should revisit the Constitution to understand what the provisions regarding confidentiality. Then, it should incorporate these provisions into the practices of the organization and ensure that there are punishments enforced for those that breach it.
References
Badzek, L., Henaghan, M., Turner, M., & Monsen, R. (2013). Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues in the Translation of Genomics Into Health Care. Journal Of Nursing Scholarship, 45(1), 15-24. doi:10.1111/jnu.12000
Duncan, R. E., Hall, A. C., & Knowles, A. (2015). Ethical Dilemmas of Confidentiality With Adolescent Clients: Case Studies From Psychologists. Ethics & Behavior, 25(3), 197-221. doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.923314
Hiriscau, I., Stingelin-Giles, N., Stadler, C., Schmeck, K., & Reiter-Theil, S. (2014). A right to confidentiality or a duty to disclose? Ethical guidance for conducting prevention research with children and adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(6), 409-416. doi:10.1007/s00787-014-0526-y
