The Ethical Dilemma of Dr. Anya Sharma: Balancing Patient Confidentiality and Public Health

Dr. Anya Sharma, a dedicated physician at a busy urban clinic, faces a complex ethical dilemma. A new patient, John, confides in her that he has recently been diagnosed with a highly contagious and potentially fatal disease. John, however, vehemently refuses to inform his partner, Jane, of his diagnosis, citing personal reasons and insisting on his right to privacy. Dr. Sharma is deeply concerned about Jane’s health and the potential for further transmission of the disease within the community.

Dilemma Summary:

Dr. Sharma’s dilemma centers on the conflict between patient confidentiality (John’s right to privacy) and her duty to protect public health (Jane’s well-being and the prevention of disease spread). She is torn between respecting John’s autonomy and fulfilling her responsibility to prevent harm to others.

Key Terms:

• Patient Confidentiality: The ethical and legal obligation of healthcare providers to protect the privacy of patient information.
• Duty of Care: The legal and ethical responsibility of healthcare providers to provide competent and appropriate care to their patients.
• Public Health: The science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health through organized community efforts. ¹  
  1. quizlet.com

  quizlet.com

Conflicts and Controversies:

This dilemma involves a direct conflict between John’s right to privacy and Jane’s right to health and safety. It also highlights the tension between individual autonomy and the collective good. Dr. Sharma must weigh her professional duty to maintain confidentiality against her responsibility to prevent foreseeable harm. This situation also raises questions about the limits of patient autonomy when it poses a risk to others.

Professional Code of Ethics:

The American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics addresses this conflict. Opinion 10.01, “Patient Confidentiality,” acknowledges the physician’s obligation to protect confidential patient information. However, it also recognizes exceptions, stating, “The physician should not withhold information when there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to an identifiable third party.” This suggests that in certain circumstances, breaching confidentiality may be ethically justifiable to protect public health.

Conflict of Duties:

Dr. Sharma’s dilemma involves a conflict between her professional duty to maintain patient confidentiality and her ethical duty to prevent harm. While the AMA code provides some guidance, the specific circumstances of each case require careful consideration. There is no apparent conflict between familial duties and professional duties in this scenario. The conflict is primarily between loyalty to an individual patient and loyalty to the wider community.

Most Moral Action:

In my view, the most moral thing for Dr. Sharma to do is to attempt to persuade John to inform Jane of his diagnosis. She should explain the serious health risks Jane faces and emphasize the importance of early detection and treatment. If John continues to refuse, and Dr. Sharma believes there is a “reasonable likelihood of harm” to Jane, she should consult with legal counsel and/or an ethics committee to determine the appropriate course of action, which may include disclosing the information to Jane, while minimizing the information shared, in accordance with applicable laws and ethical guidelines.

Justification:

This action is most moral because it prioritizes the prevention of foreseeable harm to an identifiable third party (Jane) while still respecting John’s autonomy to the extent possible. While breaching confidentiality is a serious matter, the potential consequences of inaction, including Jane’s illness and possible further spread of the disease, outweigh the harm caused by disclosing limited information. This decision is grounded in the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the best interests of others) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm).

Ethical Theories:

• Aristotle’s Golden Mean: The Golden Mean emphasizes finding a balance between extremes. In this case, the extremes are absolute confidentiality (which could lead to harm) and complete disclosure (which violates patient privacy). The morally right action lies in the middle ground – attempting to persuade John to disclose and, if that fails, disclosing limited information to Jane only after seeking legal and ethical counsel.
• Utilitarianism: This theory focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing harm. By disclosing the information to Jane (if John refuses), Dr. Sharma aims to prevent greater harm (Jane’s illness and potential further spread) even if it causes some harm to John’s privacy.
• Natural Law Ethics: This theory emphasizes inherent moral principles. In this case, the principle of preventing harm to others would take precedence over the principle of confidentiality when there is a direct and foreseeable threat to an identifiable individual.

Best Ethical Theory:

Utilitarianism, with its focus on consequences, seems to provide the strongest ethical justification in this scenario. While both the Golden Mean and Natural Law ethics offer valuable insights, utilitarianism provides a more practical framework for weighing the potential harms and benefits of different actions.

Why Other Theories Don’t Work As Well:

The Golden Mean, while emphasizing balance, doesn’t offer a clear method for deciding which extreme is more harmful in this specific situation. Natural Law ethics, while highlighting the importance of preventing harm, can be difficult to apply when different moral principles conflict.

Alignment with Most Moral Action:

The utilitarian approach aligns with my view of the most moral action. By prioritizing the prevention of harm to Jane and the wider community, Dr. Sharma acts in a way that maximizes overall well-being, even if it requires making a difficult decision about breaching confidentiality.