This article challenges the importance and necessity of confidentiality, which are often taken for granted, and questions whether the default promise of confidentiality to all participants, particularly in educational research, could in fact be an unnecessary concern. This article begins by reviewing the difference in the way confidentiality is handled in different fields and the applicability of some underlying assumptions. This is followed by an explanation of why confidentiality is investigated in the sense of anonymity in this article. Then the (...) article draws on an empirical study where original researchers and their original participants were interviewed about their views on anonymity. Lastly, the contradiction between the promises of confidentiality and the recognition of a participant’s contribution is highlighted. The article concludes with a call for more empirical observation and investigation into the importance of confidentiality. (shrink)

The laws concerning driving licences and epilepsy in different countries are very diverse with regard to the criteria for issuance or renewal of licences, and also the methods of evaluating fitness. In 2011, a law was issued in Italy implementing the European directives on driving licences, including provisions for mandatory notification that a driver is epileptic. This was established regardless of the European rules that require compulsory notification only of patients. The Federation of Italian Boards of Physicians has made recommendations (...) against mandated physician reporting, resulting in a current confusion between legal and ethical recommendations to medical doctors. The mandatory notification enacted by Italian law raises ethical concerns about disparities in access to care and possible violations of the right to confidentiality of patient information. Moreover, the law discussed here fails to emphasise the importance of physicians ensuring compliance by the patient, by sharing the correct information about the risks associated with illegal driving and by obtaining information from the patient through regular check-ups. An urgent revision of the law is required to implement the duty of the physician to provide information and to ensure that the rule about mandatory notification should be erased in favour of optional self-reporting by epileptics as the preferred way to notify the licensing authority. The implementation of these measures could correct the dichotomy between the law and the ethical recommendations for medical doctors and protect the rights of people with epilepsy as well as those of any other patients whose pathology or impairment could imply a risk to the community. (shrink)

Objective: To determine under what conditions lay people and health professionals find it acceptable for a physician to breach confidentiality to protect the wife of a patient with a sexually transmitted disease .Methods: In a study in France, breaching confidentiality in 48 scenarios were accepted by 144 lay people, 10 psychologists and 7 physicians. The scenarios were all possible combinations of five factors: severity of the disease ; time taken to discuss this with ; intent to inform the spouse about (...) the disease ; intent to adopt protective behaviours ; and decision to consult an expert in STDs , 2×2×3×2×2. The importance and interactions of each factor were determined, at the group level, by performing analyses of variance and constructing graphs.Results: The concept of breaching confidentiality to protect a wife from her husband’s STD was favoured much more by lay people and psychologists than by physicians . The patient’s stated intentions to protect his wife and to inform her of the disease had the greatest impact on acceptability. A cluster analysis showed groups of lay participants who found breaching confidentiality “always acceptable” , “depending on the many circumstances” , requiring “consultation with an expert” and “never acceptable ”.Conclusions: Most people in France are influenced by situational factors when deciding if a physician should breach confidentiality to protect the spouse of a patient infected with STD. (shrink)

Context: The need to reinvigorate medical confidentiality protections is recognised as an important objective in building patient trust necessary for successful health outcomes. Little is known about patient understanding and expectations from medical confidentiality.Objective: To identify and describe patient views of medical confidentiality and to assess provisionally the range of these views.Design: Qualitative study using indepth, open ended face-to-face interviews.Setting: Southeastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey, USA.Participants: A total of 85 women interviewed at two clinical sites and three community/research centres.Main (...) outcome measures: Subjects’ understanding of medical confidentiality, beliefs about the handling of confidential information and concerns influencing disclosure of information to doctors.Results: The subjects defined medical confidentiality as the expectation that something done or said would be kept “private” but differed on what information was confidential and the basis and methods for protecting information. Some considered all medical information as confidential and thought confidentiality protections functioned to limit its circulation to medical uses and reimbursement needs. Others defined only sensitive or potentially stigmatising information as confidential. Many of these also defined medical confidentiality as a strict limit prohibiting information release, although some noted that specific permission or urgent need could override this limit.Conclusions: Patients share a basic understanding of confidentiality as protection of information, but some might have expectations that are likely not met by current practice nor anticipated by doctors. Doctors should recognise that patients might have their own medical confidentiality models. They should address divergences from current practice and provide support to those who face emotional or practical obstacles to self-revelation. (shrink)

While it is acknowledged that there is a need for more qualitative research on suicide, it is also clear that the ethics of undertaking such research need to be addressed. This article uses the case study of the authors’ experience of gaining ethics approval for a research project that asks people what it is like to feel suicidal to (a) analyse the limits of confidentiality and anonymity and (b) consider the ways in which the process of ethics review can shape (...) and constrain suicide research. This leads to a discussion of the ways in which ethics committees assess and monitor qualitative research more generally and some preliminary suggestions for how this might be improved. (shrink)

While it is acknowledged that there is a need for more qualitative research on suicide, it is also clear that the ethics of undertaking such research need to be addressed. This article uses the case study of the authors’ experience of gaining ethics approval for a research project that asks people what it is like to feel suicidal to (a) analyse the limits of confidentiality and anonymity and (b) consider the ways in which the process of ethics review can shape (...) and constrain suicide research. This leads to a discussion of the ways in which ethics committees assess and monitor qualitative research more generally and some preliminary suggestions for how this might be improved. (shrink)

Some ethicists argue that patient confidentiality is absolute and thus should never be broken. I examine these arguments that when critically scrutinised, become porous. I will explore the concept of patient confidentiality and argue that although, this is a very important medical and bioethical issue, this needs to be wisely delivered to reduce third party harm or even detriment to the patient. The argument for absolute confidentiality is particularly weak when it comes to genetic information and inherited disease.