If someone confesses to murder in mass/to a doctor, do they have to respect confidentiality?
336947
The laws vary with the state, but basically:\n\nDoctor-patient privilege extends to both observations by the doctor, and communications between the doctor and patient, as they relate to medical diagnosis or treatment. So, "I was shot" is a communication related to treatment. But "I was shot while robbing a liquor store", only the first part is related to medical diagnosis/treatment so only the first part is protected.\n\nClergy, psychologists and attorneys also have privileges of communication, so that what is told to them (or their responses) is protected. \n\nFor attorneys, only communications regarding past crimes are protected. In most states, communications of intent to commit future crimes/frauds are not protected. \n\nFor other counselors (clergy and psychologists), it varies widely by state, with many states protecting communications of past acts and future intent, while others only protect certain types of crimes, and still others only protect past acts but not future admissions (like lawyers). Many states allow or require counselors to notify a third part of danger, even if their knowledge derives from confidential communications.\n\nIt's also important to distinguish between evidentiary privilege, which is the right of someone to prevent certain information from being used as evidence against them, and the ethical duty of confidentiality of the practitioner.\n\nFor example, say a state law requires any professional (including doctors, priests and psychologists) to notify the authorities if a patient/client states they intend to commit a murder or intend to seriously harm a child. That is state law, and any such disclosures would not be privileged. In other words, they can be used against the person who made them. (There is still the hearsay issue, but one thing at a time).\n\nIf the state law (above) required this disclosure, the counselor must follow the law, even if their ethical code conflicts. For example, say a priest or doctor's ethical code prohibits any disclosure of statements made in confidence. That's all well and good, but the law requiring disclosure trumps the ethical duty. What's worse, the priest or doctor can still get into trouble for violating their ethical duty, even though the law required them to do so.
582882
As a dental student, I recently had a conversation with a friend about such a dilemma (albeit for a dentist, who's essentially a "mouth" doctor).\n\nI believe that a doctor cannot have a romantic relationship with a patient if the "courtship" has occurred in a professional situation (ie: bedside, in a consulting room), nor can he/she use any information supplied in confidence (such as addresses or phone numbers) to contact the patient for the purposes of such a relationship. However, were the doctor to "court" this patient outside a professional situation (such as at the local pub, or at a music concert) then there is nothing ethically wrong about this, and the doctor would then be allowed to use any information supplied in this situation for the purposes of contacting the patient. If the patient says, "I gave you my phone number in the surgery this morning," the doctor should still insist on getting the number again - this will cover them in the case of an allegation of unprofessional conduct.\n\nEven after this, both parties must be aware that in a professional situation, the professional doctor-patient relationship must be maintained, and the doctor must not use his/her position to gain any advantage or disadvantage to the patient that he/she is not normally entitled to. The burden of responsibility falls on the doctor, who has a "duty of care" over the patient.\n\nTwo situations:\n\nA doctor finishes work at the hospital, goes to the local pub for a drink where he bumps into a patient. They talk for a while about various things but he politely declines to discuss her case. They then go back to her house where they have intercourse. \n\nAnother doctor is in his consulting room tending to a patient when she invites him out to for a drink. He agrees to meet her at the pub that evening. They discuss various things, and the doctor agrees to provide a more expensive therapy for the same cost because he likes her. After this, they go back to her house where they have intercourse.\n\nWhich one of these doctors has acted unprofessionally? It's the second one, and even though both doctors did the same things, they did so in DIFFERENT situations, the first one being more appropriate than the second. Should the second patient report her doctor to a practising board, the doctor will find himself with the unpleasant experience of having to defend his actions, whereas the first doctor can simply tell the board he met the patient in a casual, social setting for which the board has no jurisdiction.\n\nSo the ethics really comes down to doing the right thing at the right time.
80537
All of the above are right. In more detail, the US Supreme Court held that because the state (aka: police) can be coercive and overwhelming, it is too easy for them to pressure someone into a confession. This could potentially violate both the person's due process rights and their right to not say anything that would incriminate them (both 5th Amendment rights).\n\nTherefore, to balance the scales of justice, and to preserve the right to an attorney, people in custodial interrogation must be allowed to speak with an attorney if they ask. This ensures that the person being held by the police has someone there to help them and support them, and thus to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected. \n\nThe Court in Miranda v. Arizona found that because people may not know their rights, police are required to notify them of their rights before questioning, and must get a waiver of those rights before they can proceed.
328033
This is something the Catholic church has no revelation of.  There is no need for confessionals.  God said to confess to Him and if you have done wrong to another person, then confess to them as well.
855556
communications in email are not protected nor private. so if you admit to commiting a crime to someone in an email. police cn use that email against you.
47576
It's certainly beyond unprofessional and unethical.  \n\nIf someone referred you to this person, please contact your referrer about this doctor.  If you know of what hospital they are affiliated with, please also inform the hospital as well.\n\nI'm assuming you are an American.  Please contact your local AMA as well.  From their website: "1. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights."\n\nHowever, none of this is legally enforceable. You have no LEGAL recourse except for a malpractice suit, which may help you with your feelings but won't have any effect on this doctor except to possibly raise her malpractice insurance rates.  Malpractice is just considered part of the job nowadays.\n\n(If you are from another country, putting your country of origin in the question may help get a better answer. )\n\nIf you would do me a favor, I would appreciate if you could go to my blog and comment.  I have an entry that is pertinent to this issue and I would appreciate feedback\nThe entry: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-yY6VqgMrYqc5o1.b6JGxeg--?p=7\n\nThe introduction: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-yY6VqgMrYqc5o1.b6JGxeg--?p=18
994770
Truth of the matter is, you can be sued to divulging personal information that denies someone of their right to privacy.  This is NOT your information to relay.    The law is very definite on this.  \n\nThe therapist is also obligated to be sure his clients and co-workers are safe.  This should not be a problem as I doubt he is having sex with any of them and the chances of a blood injury from massage is slim.
184073
Patients come for counseling and psychotherapy in order for them to get help, not to be embarassed or get humiliated just because you've given out information about them to others. They need to be assured that whatever info they'll give to you'll keep it between the two of you. Assuring them of confidentiality could help you gain your patient's trust. If your patient trusts you, he/she could then give accurate info about him/her or about his/her problem.
517167
Only in two circumstances that I can think of:\n1. If there a question re: your death and they need to perform an autopsy, or\n2. If you are donating your organs (they've got to transport them)
162734
Was it ever on a moral high ground?\n\nIf anything, greg made the right moral choice by telling her to go back to her husband. he couldn't stomach the thought of ruining mark's life.\nAnd the doctors had to remain true to their patient's confidentiality. They are there to treat diseases, not pass judgement on a patient's marital choices.
519618
You should NEVER hide something from your doctor (I'm not sure that's proper English, though). He's paid to ANSWER all questions and he's probably answered your question before so you shouldn't feel embarrassed (I have to admit that some doctors are not that friendly and don't really encourage you to ask questions)
991390
You may be able to go down to the local police department if you are a family member and are simply interested. A local historian my also have information that the report may not to talk to him/her if you want any more info. But I don't live out there so I don't know the specific rules that say what you can and can't do regarding information like a coroner's report.
313851
say a serial killer is also a scientist. so he takes detailed research notes on every murder he commits. and he gets away with killing over and over again. after some time, he will either get caught, or he will get away with it. someday, someone will find the papers he left, or he will try to profit from it himself. would it be moral or just to use this murderer's research? \n\nit is theoretically possible that the information from that murderer's crimes could be useful to the living. but in using it, aren't we disrespecting the victims? aren't we disregarding the methods used to obtain the information? say he was living, and still attempting to justify his actions from prison, or to himself in secret... wouldn't it be helping him justify the worth of his heinous acts? it's like paying him, if not with money then with respect. it's an untenable position.
765728
Yes, you always tell your attorney the truth. But most won't ask you (and you shouldn't blurt out) whether you're guilty or not. Listen to what your lawyer asks you. Answer the questions honestly.\n\nIf there's something more you think the lawyer should know, ask if he or she wants to know about whatever it is... be guided by their answer.\n\nAssuming you're discussing a criminal case, the issue for the lawyer won't necessarily be whether you're guilty, but rather whether the state can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, using evidence gathered within the restrictions of law.\n\nIf you're discussing a civil matter, the rules aren't much different.
563134
Breaking someone's confidential matter.
926749
The alleged murderer could not be located for questioning. \n\nThe alleged cure-all produced no results when it was tested by reputable doctors.
104809
It doesn’t seem fair does it. I went through the criminal justice system last year around this time.\n\nYou can get a defense, your public defender will have you plea bargain the case out, only about 2% of cases ever make it to trial.\n\nDepending on your crime, and your mental state at the time of the arrest, the victim, and the case itself will all be key factors.\n\nIt is fair, if the public defender gives any information without your consent to anyone, including but not limited to judges, clerks, prosecutors, etc. it is a violation of the attorney client confidentiality agreement.\n\nBest wishes...and if you have the money or can get the money, fight it, call around and get the best attorney you can afford, nobody likes a bad record.