INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Is confidentiality an ethical issue?
Is confidentiality an ethical issue?
I confided in someone but they didn't keep it what I said confidential. I feel very hurt and intend to confront them about it but first I want to think through the whole thing about the ethics of confidentiality and why I think it is important. To help me do this I would like to ask people here for their thoughts on the subject.
What are the circumstances in which you think it is OK to breach confidentiality?
What are the circumstances in which you think it is OK to breach confidentiality?
I feel that this is a very diffficult problem.
Telling someone something 'in confidence' may require one to check that they understand what that means so that if in doubt don't confide.
I also feel that sometimes the breaking of confidence is ethical. For example, professional confidentiality may sometimes be broken if there is a possible danger to a third party. If as a counsellor, you are told that someone has a gun and is going to kill someone - or if a drug user is admitting that he is being violent to his wife.
In my personal life, I have been asked not to tell so-and-so something or not to tell someone that I know something when I feel they should know. The answer I suppose is to refuse to accept the confidentiality, explain that you do not agree with that particular piece of privacy and leave it to the other person to decide whether to tell you or not. In reverse, i guees this means check before you tell and choose the people you tell carefully.
Sorry I got a bit confused there
Telling someone something 'in confidence' may require one to check that they understand what that means so that if in doubt don't confide.
I also feel that sometimes the breaking of confidence is ethical. For example, professional confidentiality may sometimes be broken if there is a possible danger to a third party. If as a counsellor, you are told that someone has a gun and is going to kill someone - or if a drug user is admitting that he is being violent to his wife.
In my personal life, I have been asked not to tell so-and-so something or not to tell someone that I know something when I feel they should know. The answer I suppose is to refuse to accept the confidentiality, explain that you do not agree with that particular piece of privacy and leave it to the other person to decide whether to tell you or not. In reverse, i guees this means check before you tell and choose the people you tell carefully.
Sorry I got a bit confused there
- Oxfordrocks
- Posts: 674
- Joined: September 10th, 2007, 9:45 am
As soon as someone says "Between you and me" or "don't say anyting but...." or any number of alternatives I just walk away.
If you do not want your "Dirty Washing" aired in public don't tell anyone.
Some people cannot help but blab your secrets all over the place, don't be too hard on your friend Moonbeam....he/she is only human after all.
If you do not want your "Dirty Washing" aired in public don't tell anyone.
Some people cannot help but blab your secrets all over the place, don't be too hard on your friend Moonbeam....he/she is only human after all.
hello
Someone once told me that everyone tells at least one person if they're told something to keep secret. It's not entirely true but I always keep it in mind if I know something confidential.
Tue only way to keep a confidence is not to tell it to any-one nor to tell anyone you have a secret to keep.
If you have to tell someone then you have to make it very clear to them in explicit terms what you expect them to do or not do with the information.
Tue only way to keep a confidence is not to tell it to any-one nor to tell anyone you have a secret to keep.
If you have to tell someone then you have to make it very clear to them in explicit terms what you expect them to do or not do with the information.
Regards
Campbell
Campbell
Professional confidentiality and personal confidentiality should surely be exactly that, confidential. You can feel a however coming on though can't you?
Professionally I have never broken confidentiality but can see circumstances where I would, as jaywhat says, if there was danger to a third party.
But there can be a huge difference in the gossipy "don't say anything but..." that OR cites and a loving, supportive network of friends. I have twice broken personal confidentiality but told the confidant that I was about to do so and why. They are still my friends.
I'm uncomfortable with OR's assertion "If you do not want your "Dirty Washing" aired in public don't tell anyone." (not got quotes yet, sorry). Without communicating our experiences, feelings and fears with our fellow human beings we can miss out on that wonderful human ability to talk through our difficulties to find resolution. I find it inconceivable that one can always do this successfully alone.
I guess Moonbeam, if your confidentiality was breached professionally you have recourse in law. If personally they'd better have a damn good explanation, and I would hope they had your interests at heart.
Professionally I have never broken confidentiality but can see circumstances where I would, as jaywhat says, if there was danger to a third party.
But there can be a huge difference in the gossipy "don't say anything but..." that OR cites and a loving, supportive network of friends. I have twice broken personal confidentiality but told the confidant that I was about to do so and why. They are still my friends.
I'm uncomfortable with OR's assertion "If you do not want your "Dirty Washing" aired in public don't tell anyone." (not got quotes yet, sorry). Without communicating our experiences, feelings and fears with our fellow human beings we can miss out on that wonderful human ability to talk through our difficulties to find resolution. I find it inconceivable that one can always do this successfully alone.
I guess Moonbeam, if your confidentiality was breached professionally you have recourse in law. If personally they'd better have a damn good explanation, and I would hope they had your interests at heart.
- Oxfordrocks
- Posts: 674
- Joined: September 10th, 2007, 9:45 am
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am
Catholic priests taking 'confession' do so under a strict code of confidentiality, but if say for instance the priest was told by the person in the confession box that they had murdered someone, would it be more ethical to keep the confidence or report matters to the police.
Let us assume for the argument the priest was able to pass the information on anonymously.
Should the priest be true to the ethics of the confessional or true to the ethics of a responsible member of society?
I don't really know how to rationalise this one.
regards FB
Let us assume for the argument the priest was able to pass the information on anonymously.
Should the priest be true to the ethics of the confessional or true to the ethics of a responsible member of society?
I don't really know how to rationalise this one.
regards FB
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.
FB
I suspect (although I don't know for sure) that a priest would not report it - I think they think their confidentiality is more important (particularly if they want to keep their job or the respect of their congregation).
Whether or not this is ethical is an entirely different matter and I don't see how not telling could in any way be considered ethical.
I suspect (although I don't know for sure) that a priest would not report it - I think they think their confidentiality is more important (particularly if they want to keep their job or the respect of their congregation).
Whether or not this is ethical is an entirely different matter and I don't see how not telling could in any way be considered ethical.
I don't think confidentiality is always and inevitably tied to ethics. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I do, however, think confidentiality is always tied to respect and respect should be the default position: you accord it automatically to people unless they've done something to lose respect. Sometimes it really wouldn't do any harm if confidentiality is breached and it may even do some good. But this isn't a reason for breaching confidentiality if one respects the person/people involved and cares about their feelings. If one doesn't, then betraying someone's trust has to be justified according to one's own conscience.
It becomes an ethical issue when there is the possibility of hurt or harm caused by keeping/or breaching confidentiality. If somebody confesses to you that they are, say, abusing a child and asks you not to tell anyone, then that is clearly an ethical issue. Keeping confidential information that would exonerate someone if it were known is another example. At the end of the day and - notwithstanding professional codes of ethics - these are matters for individual consciences.
I was discussing this matter on another forum recently and a psychiatrist made the point that in order to be able to treat someone who has committed a horrible crime and so prevent future occurences he needed the person to trust him and confide in him totally and this would not happen if he would not guarantee confidentiality. I understand that.
However, as I'm not a professional therapist of any sort, if I had someone confess a horrible crime to me causing me to instantly lose respect for them, I would have no compunction about breaching confidentiality provided I was sure some good would come of it. By 'good' I mean either that the person will receive appropriate punishment, that people will be protected from the possibility of further heinous acts or that some reparation to the victim could be made.
I'm always shocked when people say that if Lord Lucan is still alive somewhere he should be left alone. The guy committed a horrible murder of an innocent young mother and if I bumped into him and he confided in me, I would have no hesitation in turning him in to the police so he could stand trial and, hopefully, spend the rest of his life in prison. I would do this both to demonstrate that the passing of years doesn't lessen the severity of the crime and so his victim's family can have some peace.
My final thought is that, unless it is made absolutely clear that a matter is confidential and agreement to respect that confidentiality has been established in advance, there is no case to answer by the person who has supposedly breached it.
It becomes an ethical issue when there is the possibility of hurt or harm caused by keeping/or breaching confidentiality. If somebody confesses to you that they are, say, abusing a child and asks you not to tell anyone, then that is clearly an ethical issue. Keeping confidential information that would exonerate someone if it were known is another example. At the end of the day and - notwithstanding professional codes of ethics - these are matters for individual consciences.
I was discussing this matter on another forum recently and a psychiatrist made the point that in order to be able to treat someone who has committed a horrible crime and so prevent future occurences he needed the person to trust him and confide in him totally and this would not happen if he would not guarantee confidentiality. I understand that.
However, as I'm not a professional therapist of any sort, if I had someone confess a horrible crime to me causing me to instantly lose respect for them, I would have no compunction about breaching confidentiality provided I was sure some good would come of it. By 'good' I mean either that the person will receive appropriate punishment, that people will be protected from the possibility of further heinous acts or that some reparation to the victim could be made.
I'm always shocked when people say that if Lord Lucan is still alive somewhere he should be left alone. The guy committed a horrible murder of an innocent young mother and if I bumped into him and he confided in me, I would have no hesitation in turning him in to the police so he could stand trial and, hopefully, spend the rest of his life in prison. I would do this both to demonstrate that the passing of years doesn't lessen the severity of the crime and so his victim's family can have some peace.
My final thought is that, unless it is made absolutely clear that a matter is confidential and agreement to respect that confidentiality has been established in advance, there is no case to answer by the person who has supposedly breached it.
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: November 8th, 2007, 12:27 pm
Ok, here's my first proper post apart from my short introduction.
I believe that as a general matter, confidentiality is a matter of trust. Society would not work if people could not trust anyone.
That said, there may be situations where justice requires that confidentiality is breached. Let me give an obvious extreme example: Suppose someone tells me in confidentiality that he/she intends to murder someone else. Should I expose his intention if I cannot prevent the murder myself? I believe I should, and I doubt it if many people would disagree.
Of course, there may be some confidential things said which are not exactly a matter of life or death. Something I would consider a grey area is the following example: Suppose someone cheats on his/her partner, but is honestly sorry he/she did so and plans not to do it again. Suppose he/she tells me about it. Should I tell his/her partner? Tricky. Perhaps, it could be argued that the partner has the right to know of the betrayal of trust on the part of the other partner, but what would be the effect of my telling? Would any or both partners be better off if I divulge the secret?
Of course, I firmly believe that non-consequential secrets should always be kept (as a matter of trust), but what is non-consequential is not always very clear. And there is always the question of "the right to know" vs "what's best for you".
I believe that as a general matter, confidentiality is a matter of trust. Society would not work if people could not trust anyone.
That said, there may be situations where justice requires that confidentiality is breached. Let me give an obvious extreme example: Suppose someone tells me in confidentiality that he/she intends to murder someone else. Should I expose his intention if I cannot prevent the murder myself? I believe I should, and I doubt it if many people would disagree.
Of course, there may be some confidential things said which are not exactly a matter of life or death. Something I would consider a grey area is the following example: Suppose someone cheats on his/her partner, but is honestly sorry he/she did so and plans not to do it again. Suppose he/she tells me about it. Should I tell his/her partner? Tricky. Perhaps, it could be argued that the partner has the right to know of the betrayal of trust on the part of the other partner, but what would be the effect of my telling? Would any or both partners be better off if I divulge the secret?
Of course, I firmly believe that non-consequential secrets should always be kept (as a matter of trust), but what is non-consequential is not always very clear. And there is always the question of "the right to know" vs "what's best for you".
That confidentiality should be breached in some circumstances - e.g. to prevent a crime - is a no-brainer.
I think when we come to personal relationships we are in much murkier waters. To me, if a friend were to start talking about something obviously personal - that his marriage, say, - he doesn't need to ask me to keep it confidential. The golden rule applies. What would I expect of a friend if I confided something personal? Not everyone thinks this way of course and no doubt many a friendship has been damaged beyond repair by loose tongues.
Murkier still are letters and emails. My own view is that it is unfair to ask someone to keep the contents of an email you have sent to them confidential once you have sent it. If it's that important, get agreement in advance. Once you've sent the person has received the email, it is their property to do what they want with.
I think when we come to personal relationships we are in much murkier waters. To me, if a friend were to start talking about something obviously personal - that his marriage, say, - he doesn't need to ask me to keep it confidential. The golden rule applies. What would I expect of a friend if I confided something personal? Not everyone thinks this way of course and no doubt many a friendship has been damaged beyond repair by loose tongues.
Murkier still are letters and emails. My own view is that it is unfair to ask someone to keep the contents of an email you have sent to them confidential once you have sent it. If it's that important, get agreement in advance. Once you've sent the person has received the email, it is their property to do what they want with.
Couple of things I do not agree with Malcolm on here - he says
Surely that is a good reason for breaching confidentialityThat confidentiality should be breached in some circumstances - e.g. to prevent a crime - is a no-brainer.
No it is not their property. What you say or write is not automatically public property if you have asked for it not to be.Once the person has received the email, it is their property to do what they want with.
Hi jaywhat
I didn't say it was 'public property' I said it was their property meaning the person you have addressed and sent the email to. Why wouldn't it be? Why is it any different from anything else you give someone?
Indeed it is. That is what I meant when I said it was a no-brainer.jaywhat wrote: Surely that is a good reason for breaching confidentiality
No it is not their property. What you say or write is not automatically public property if you have asked for it not to be.
I didn't say it was 'public property' I said it was their property meaning the person you have addressed and sent the email to. Why wouldn't it be? Why is it any different from anything else you give someone?
Thank you for your responses.
It was a work colleague who betrayed my trust - not a close friend - but what makes this so annoying is that I wasn't going to confide in them at all. They guessed part of it and then persuaded me to tell them the rest promising that they wouldn't tell a soul and then promptly did.
There's no serious harm done but I will never trust this person again and I intended to tell them so. Unfortunately I have to work with them though not too closely.
It was a work colleague who betrayed my trust - not a close friend - but what makes this so annoying is that I wasn't going to confide in them at all. They guessed part of it and then persuaded me to tell them the rest promising that they wouldn't tell a soul and then promptly did.
There's no serious harm done but I will never trust this person again and I intended to tell them so. Unfortunately I have to work with them though not too closely.
Interesting one. I'm always quoting from emails I've received without the permission of the writer but it's always seemed obvious to me that the contents are not personal or confidential and that it would do no harm to quote them. If the contents appeared in any way 'sensitive' then I wouldn't make them public.jaywhat wrote:No it is not their property. What you say or write is not automatically public property if you have asked for it not to be.Once the person has received the email, it is their property to do what they want with.
Unless it suits their own ends of course, this parasite was taking confession from people and then reporting them.Alan H
I suspect (although I don't know for sure) that a priest would not report it - I think they think their confidentiality is more important
The bastard even took part in the torture, full story here.He served as chaplain to the Buenos Aires provincial police force, and he is accused of using his office to win the trust of prisoners before passing information to the police torturers and killers who were holding them.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.