The ethics of confidentiality in teaching and research

INVITED COMMENTARY ON... RE-EVALUATING CONFIDENTIALITY

Peter Tyrer is Professor of Community Psychiatry and Head of the Department of Psychological Medicine at Imperial College (Charing Cross Campus, St Dunstan’s Road, London W6 8RP, UK. E-mail: p.tyrer{at}imperial.ac.uk), and an honorary consultant in rehabilitation psychiatry with Central North West London and West London Mental Health NHS Trusts. He is the current Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

Draper & Rogers (2005, this issue) have put an important subject under the ethical microscope. They have demonstrated that the current, fairly simple, rules applying to the publication of case studies and dissemination of patient information in teaching are inadequate and need revision. This is particularly important because such forms of communication are likely to increase in the future. Many journals, including the British Journal of Psychiatry, generally frown upon case studies as representing little value to science: case studies unnecessarily focus on the particular; their message is only valuable when it is general. However, they aren’t going to go away because their educational value is obvious, as anyone who looks at the handling of almost any scientific subject in the mass media will testify. Experts can pontificate on hypotheses, proportions, means and significance to little effect and the real message comes home from a sufferer or successfully treated patient who adds human flesh to a dry factual skeleton. This need to particularise is necessary in all parts of teaching.

	Violation, indiscretion and secretiveness

Top Violation, indiscretion and... Anonymisation and equity References

 
We live in a curious society in which we are becoming ever more open with regard to freedom of information but ever more protective towards the disclosure of personal information. Thus, the public’s right to know and the Data Protection Act often seem to be on a collision course, as recent controversy over the Ian Huntley case and the Soham child murders illustrates. We cannot afford to be secretive and yet if this provokes feelings of violation we have to be.

The goal posts have shifted in the past 20 years and the old utilitarian hypothesis that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number, a common justification for participating in research which has no direct benefit to the individuals taking part at the time, has been replaced by the even older primum non nocere, above all do no harm.

	Anonymisation and equity

Top Violation, indiscretion and... Anonymisation and equity References

 
Draper & Rogers make a strong case for better use of anonymisation in teaching and publication. This is certainly a way forward and definitely justified, as so much of the personal information given in case reports for teaching purposes is redundant to the main message. Unless we can tackle the problems of disclosure and potential violation we are in danger of retreating to a defensive position whereby we publish and teach using only an extreme minority of patients who are narcissistically keen for their special problems to be exposed to the world. I have great sympathy with Draper & Rogers’ suggestion that

‘unless incompetent patients participate in research, as a group either they will not benefit from it or benefit will be retarded as advances resulting from trials on competent patients will be applied on an individual and ad hoc basis’.

This problem is prominent in conditions such as learning disability, in which enlightened views of care have not been accompanied by similar enlightenment in research (Fraser, 2000; Oliver et al, 2002). Similarly, if patients who feel potentially violated or discriminated against for other reasons do not take part in teaching and research, as a group they are likely to suffer because their special need will not be taken into account by those who are involved in developing guidelines and treatments for these individuals. We have to re-establish the message that good teaching and good research benefit everybody and the difficulties in achieving them should never become personal obstacles.

	Footnotes

 
This is the first of two invited commentaries on this article. For the second see pp. 123–124, this issue.

	References

Top Violation, indiscretion and... Anonymisation and equity References

 
Draper, H. & Rogers, W. (2005) Re-evaluating confidentiality: using patient information in teaching and publications. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 11, 115–121.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Fraser, W. I. (2000) Three decades after Penrose. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 10–11.[Free Full Text]

Oliver, P. C., Piachaud, J., Done, J., et al (2002) Difficulties in conducting a randomised controlled trial of health service interventions in intellectual disability: implications for evidence-based practice. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 340–345.

Related articles in APT:

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

Heather Draper and Wendy Rogers
APT 2005 11: 115-124. [Abstract] [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:

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

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in APT Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tyrer, P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Tyrer, P.