Breach of confidentiality and the duty to warn in medical law: examples from clinical psychiatry
| dc.contributor.author | Steyn, C. R. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-04-04T08:51:15Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-04-04T08:51:15Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2006 | |
| dc.description.abstract | English: This article addresses various factors involved in the tension that may arise between breach of confidentiality on the one hand, and dereliction of the duty to warn, on the other, in the context of medical law. Per illustration, examples from clinical psychiatric practice, in which the sharing of personal information is especially relevant, are featured. In sum, a practitioner must be reasonable in negotiating the proverbial tightrope: if he or she reveals too much, liability can arise, and, if he or she reveals too little, liability can arise. In medical law, the standard of reasonableness is measured with reference to “the reasonable practitioner”. Weighing up various factors (discussed herein), the reasonable practitioner takes confidentiality as the point of departure; only if there is a compelling reason to override confidentiality, will it afford legal justification to the practitioner. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Afrikaans: Hierdie artikel neem verskeie faktore wat ’n rol speel in die spanning wat kan ontstaan tussen die vertroulikheidplig aan die een kant, en die waarskuwingsplig aan die ander kant, onder die loep. Per illustrasie, word voorbeelde uit die kliniese psigiatriese praktyk, waar persoonlike informasie veral relevant is, vertoon. Ter opsomming moet ’n praktisyn redelik wees in die wyse waarop hy of sy oor die spreekwoordelike dwarslyn loop: as hy of sy te veel ontbloot, kan dit tot aanspreeklikheid lei, en, as hy of sy te min ontbloot, kan dit immers ook tot aanspreeklikheid lei. In die geneeskundige reg word die redelikheidstandaard gemeet aan die hand van “die redelike praktisyn”. Die redelike praktisyn weeg verskeie faktore op (bespreek in hierdie artikel), met vertroulikheid as uitgangspunt; slegs as daar ’n grondige rede is om vertroulikheid in te kort, sal dit ’n geregtelike regverdigingsgrond aan die praktisyn verleen. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.version | Publisher's version | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Steyn, C. R. (2006). Breach of confidentiality and the duty to warn in medical law: Examples from clinical psychiatry. Journal for Juridical Science, 31(1), 134-142. | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0258-252X (print) | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2415-0517 (online) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/8097 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | Faculty of Law, University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | Faculty of Law, University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Breach of confidentiality | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Duty to warn | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Clinical psychiatric practice | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Medical law | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Personal information | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Legal justification | en_ZA |
| dc.title | Breach of confidentiality and the duty to warn in medical law: examples from clinical psychiatry | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Article | en_ZA |