A patient is diagnosed with a disease. Its genetic so there is a good chance the condition will manifest in at least one of his five children or one of his parents(who are both still alive). I cant divulge exactly which disease this patient had but lets pretend its Huntingdons a very nasty, incurable and degenerative neurological disorder. Now here is the kicker, he doesnt want anyone to know, he doesnt want his wife, his parents, his children to know and thus he is preventing any of them being screened. Our obligation is to the patient, and he can rely on confidentiality in this case. Our legal obligation would take priority if this was a very infectious bacterial infection, we would have to trace everyone who came in contact with the patient and screen them. However this is not infectious, the patients family already either have it or they dont the dice have been thrown. So we say nothing.
Now what if the patients son was in RAF Squadron, flying planes with high yeild payloads for a living and he didnt realise he had a condition which severely impairs motor function as a primary symptom. Do we not have an obligation to the greater good then to inform the patients son?
I understand the importance of confidentiality. I also understand that this patient had just recieved the worst news of his life and probably wanted to prevent any of his family worrying about him, he may even have been clear headed enough to realise that if his children didnt know they couldnt get tested and those those of them who surely had this condition could be spared feeling what he was feeling now. Its information that you cant take back, once you tell someone they are going to die in one of the most horrific ways imaginable(and there is no way to sugar coat it) you cant untell them. His children were only young, whilst the condition could strike at any time maybe he was just trying to buy them a few more years of innocence?
In the interests of balance(I have been told I always assume the best in people) maybe he was just a coward who didnt want to face his own fate and thought that by hiding it he could avoid it no matter what the cost to those around him.
What would you do in this situation? would you respect the patients right to confidentiality? or would you inform his family?
Now what if the patients son was in RAF Squadron, flying planes with high yeild payloads for a living and he didnt realise he had a condition which severely impairs motor function as a primary symptom. Do we not have an obligation to the greater good then to inform the patients son?
I understand the importance of confidentiality. I also understand that this patient had just recieved the worst news of his life and probably wanted to prevent any of his family worrying about him, he may even have been clear headed enough to realise that if his children didnt know they couldnt get tested and those those of them who surely had this condition could be spared feeling what he was feeling now. Its information that you cant take back, once you tell someone they are going to die in one of the most horrific ways imaginable(and there is no way to sugar coat it) you cant untell them. His children were only young, whilst the condition could strike at any time maybe he was just trying to buy them a few more years of innocence?
In the interests of balance(I have been told I always assume the best in people) maybe he was just a coward who didnt want to face his own fate and thought that by hiding it he could avoid it no matter what the cost to those around him.
What would you do in this situation? would you respect the patients right to confidentiality? or would you inform his family?
