This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in APT
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Draper, H.
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Draper, H.
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, W.
Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2005) 11: 115-124
© 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Re-evaluating confidentiality: using patient information in teaching and publications{dagger}

Heather Draper and Wendy Rogers

Heather Draper is Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Ethics at the University of Birmingham (Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Department of Primary Care and General Practice, Primary Care (T) Building, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. E-mail: h.draper{at}bham.ac.uk). She has been teaching medical/healthcare ethics (and some law) to medical students and postgraduates from a variety of healthcare backgrounds since the mid-1980s. She writes on a range of ethical issues, but her primary research focus is reproductive technology. Wendy Rogers is Associate Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Law in the School of Medicine at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. She currently teaches health law and ethics to students and practitioners in a range of healthcare professions. Her research interests include ethics of evidence-based medicine, ethical issues in general practice, feminist healthcare ethics and public health ethics.

Case studies used in psychiatry for teaching and learning can include large amounts of personal information, and most medical journals refuse to publish case material without patient consent. However, not all patients are capable of consenting and maintaining anonymity is not always successful. Disclosure of personal information without consent can cause a sense of violation, but a principle of non-violation rigorously applied would prohibit the use of such material without consent, even if the patient is completely unidentifiable. A public interest argument can be made for using patient information for teaching purposes. Furthermore, a limited case can be made for using, and even publishing, some cases without consent, e.g. those requiring urgent public discussion or concerning people who are incapable of giving consent. Thus, an argument can be put forward for relaxing to this limited degree the demand for patient consent to publish case material.


Related articles in APT:

The ethics of confidentiality in teaching and research: INVITED COMMENTARY ON... RE-EVALUATING CONFIDENTIALITY
Peter Tyrer
APT 2005 11: 122-123. [Full Text]  

History is bunk: INVITED COMMENTARY ON... RE-EVALUATING CONFIDENTIALITY
Gwen Adshead
APT 2005 11: 123-124. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Adv. Psychiatr. Treat.Home page
D. Stone
The Freedom of Information Act 2000: should psychiatrists be worried?
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat., September 1, 2005; 11(5): 317 - 320.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Adv. Psychiatr. Treat.Home page
P. Tyrer
The ethics of confidentiality in teaching and research: INVITED COMMENTARY ON... RE-EVALUATING CONFIDENTIALITY
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat., March 1, 2005; 11(2): 122 - 123.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Adv. Psychiatr. Treat.Home page
G. Adshead
History is bunk: INVITED COMMENTARY ON... RE-EVALUATING CONFIDENTIALITY
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat., March 1, 2005; 11(2): 123 - 124.
[Full Text] [PDF]