Confidentiality involves a set of rules or appointments that are usually made through confidentiality agreements that restrict access or place restrictions on certain types of information.
Video Confidentiality
Rahasia hukum
Lawyers are often required by law to keep secret everything related to client representation. The privacy obligation is much broader than the client-client attorney privilege, which only covers communication between lawyers and clients.
Both privileges and duties serve the purpose of encouraging clients to speak frankly about their case. In this way, attorneys can carry out their duty to provide clients with an eager representation. Otherwise, the opposing party may be able to surprise a lawyer in court with something he or she does not know about his client, which may undermine the client's position. Also, an unbelieving client may hide relevant facts which he thinks is burdensome, but expert lawyers can turn to the client's benefits (for example, by increasing affirmative defenses like self-defense)
However, most jurisdictions have exceptions to situations in which a lawyer has reason to believe that a client may seriously kill or injure a person, may cause substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another person, or use (or attempt to use) the services of a lawyer to commit a crime or fraud.
In such situations, lawyers have the discretion, but not the obligation, to disclose information designed to prevent planned action. Most countries have this discretionary disclosure rule version under the Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 (or equivalent).
Some jurisdictions have made this traditional obligatory duty. For example, see the New Jersey and Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6.
In some jurisdictions, the attorney should try to convince the client to adjust his conduct to the legal limits before disclosing any confidential information.
Note that these exceptions generally do not cover crimes that have occurred, even in extreme cases where murderers have admitted the location of missing corpses to their lawyers but police are still searching for the bodies. The US Supreme Court and many state supreme courts have asserted the right of lawyers to withhold information in such situations. Otherwise, it is not possible for a criminal defendant to get a passionate defense.
California is famous for having one of the world's strongest secrecy jobs; his lawyers must protect the client's secrets in "any danger to himself [or himself]" under the former California Business and Professions Code 6068 (e) section. Up to an amendment in 2004 (which changed the subsection (e) into sub-sections (e) (1) and added subsections (e) (2) to section 6068), California lawyers were not even allowed to disclose that clients would commit murder or attack. The California Supreme Court promptly amended the California Professional Behavior Rules to adapt to the new exceptions in the revised law.
Recent legislation in the UK limits professionals of secrecy such as lawyers and accountants can sustain at the expense of the state. Accountants, for example, are required to disclose to the state of suspicion of accounting fraud and, in fact, the legitimate use of tax-saving schemes if such schemes are not yet known by the tax authorities.
Breach of belief in English law
"The three traditional requirements of acts for breach of trust" are identified by Megarry J at Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1968) in the following terms:
In my judgment, three elements are usually required if, apart from the contract, a case of breach of trust is successful. First, the information itself, in the words of Lord Greene, M.R. in the case of Saltman on page 215, it should "have the necessary quality of trust about it." Second, the information must be given in the circumstances of importing trust obligations. Third, there must be unauthorized use of the information to the detriment of the party communicating it.
The 1896 case featuring royal accoucheur Dr William Smoult Playfair shows the difference between a lay and medical view. Playfair was consulted by Linda Kitson; she made sure that she was pregnant when separated from her husband. He told his wife, a Kitson's relative, to protect himself and their daughters from moral contagion. Kitson is suing, and the case is gaining public fame, with major damage being given to doctors.
Maps Confidentiality
Medical secrecy
Confidentiality is usually applied to conversations between doctors and patients. Legal protection prevents doctors from disclosing certain discussions with patients, even under oath in court. This doctor-patient privilege only applies to secrets shared between doctors and patients during medical treatment.
This rule originated from at least the Hippocratic Oath, which reads: Regardless, in respect of my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in human life, which should not be uttered. from abroad, I will not divulge, as a calculation that all of it should be kept secret.
Traditionally, medical ethics has regarded the obligation of secrecy as a relatively non-negotiable principle of medical practice.
United States
Confidentiality is the standard in the United States by HIPAA laws, in particular the Privacy Rules, and various state laws, some more stringent than HIPAA. However, many exceptions to rules have been carved over the years. For example, many US states require doctors to report gunshot wounds to police and disrupt drivers to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Confidentiality is also challenged in cases involving the diagnosis of sexually transmitted diseases in patients who refuse to disclose the diagnosis to a partner, and in terminating the pregnancy to a minor, without the knowledge of the patient's parents. Many states in the U.S. have laws governing parental notices in underage abortions.
HIV secrecy
In the UK information about one's HIV status is kept secret in the NHS. It is based on law, in the Constitution of the NHS and in key NHS rules and procedures. This is also described in each NHS employee employment contract and in the professional standards established by the regulatory body. Confidentiality of the National AIDS Trust on the NHS: Your Information Your rights describe these rights. All registered health care professionals must comply with these standards and if they are known to have breached confidentiality, they may face disciplinary action.
A healthcare provider shares confidential information with others who, or will soon, provide patients directly with health care to ensure they are getting the best care possible. They only share information relevant to their care in the example, and with consent.
There are two ways to grant approval: explicit approval or implied agreement . The explicit consent is when a patient clearly communicates with a healthcare provider, orally or in writing or otherwise, that relevant confidential information may be shared. Implicit approval, means that the patient's consent to share private confidential information is assumed. When private confidential information is shared between healthcare workers, consent is implied.
If a patient does not want healthcare workers to share confidential health information, they need to explain this and discuss it with health care staff. Patients have the right, in many situations, to deny permission for health care professionals to share their information with other health care professionals, even one who gives them treatment - but is advised, if necessary, about the dangers of this action, due to possible drug interactions.
However, in some cases limited, healthcare workers may share personal information without consent if it is in the public interest. These examples are set out in guidance from the General Medical Council, which is the regulatory body for physicians. Sometimes healthcare workers must provide information - if required by law or in response to a court order.
The National AIDS Trust has written guidelines for people living with HIV to maintain confidentiality in the NHS.
Clinical and counseling psychology
The ethical principle of secrecy requires that the information shared by the client with the therapist in the course of treatment is not shared with others. This principle reinforces therapeutic alliances, as it promotes an environment of trust. There are important exceptions to secrecy, ie where it conflicts with the duty of the physician to warn or be obliged to protect. This includes examples of suicidal behavior or plans of murder, child abuse, old age harassment, and dependent adult harassment. Recently, secrecy laws have been changed so doctors and nurses face strict punishment if they violate confidentiality.
On 26 June 2012, a Oslo District Court judge apologized for a court hearing (on June 14, regarding a secrecy-protected Childhood Relations (Norway) relationship (which had not been released during the trial of Anders Behring Breivik).
Commercial secrets
Some legal jurisdictions recognize a category of commercial confidentiality in which a business may retain information on the basis of perceived loss for "commercial interest". For example: Coca-Cola Coca-Cola's main soft drink remains a trade secret.
Banking secrets
Public policy concerns
Confidentiality agreements that "seal" litigation settlements are not unusual, but this may cause regulators and the public to be unaware of public dangers. In the US state of Washington, for example, journalists found that about two dozen medical malpractice cases have been illegally sealed by judges, leading to weak discipline that is weak by the state health department. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Catholic sexual abuse scandals involved a number of confidentiality agreements with victims. Some states have passed laws restricting confidentiality. For example, in 1990, Florida passed a 'Sunlight in Litigation' law that confined the secrecy of hiding public harm. The states of Washington, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana have laws that restrict secrecy as well, although legal interpretations have undermined the application of this type of law. In the US Congress, the Federal Act in a similar Litigation Act has been proposed but not ratified in 2009, 2011, 2014, and 2015.
See also
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments