在遗传和非遗传案件中违反保密规定:两个有问题的区别。

IF 17 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Madison K Kilbride
{"title":"在遗传和非遗传案件中违反保密规定:两个有问题的区别。","authors":"Madison K Kilbride","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2024.2388719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethical questions about confidentiality arise when patients refuse to inform relatives who are at risk of a genetic condition. Specifically, healthcare providers may struggle with the permissibility of breaching confidentiality to warn patients' at-risk relatives. In exploring this issue, several authors have converged around the idea that genetic cases differ from non-genetic cases (e.g., involving a threat of violence or the spread of an infectious disease) along two related dimensions: (1) In genetic cases, the risk of harm is already present in an at-risk third party, whereas in non-genetic cases, it is not; and (2) In genetic cases, the patient does not create a risk of harm to a third party, whereas in non-genetic cases, the patient does. I argue that these distinctions do not exclusively differentiate genetic from non-genetic cases and should not bear on the permissibility of breaching confidentiality. Instead, such determinations should be based on other considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50962,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":17.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Breaching Confidentiality in Genetic and Non-Genetic Cases: Two Problematic Distinctions.\",\"authors\":\"Madison K Kilbride\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15265161.2024.2388719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ethical questions about confidentiality arise when patients refuse to inform relatives who are at risk of a genetic condition. Specifically, healthcare providers may struggle with the permissibility of breaching confidentiality to warn patients' at-risk relatives. In exploring this issue, several authors have converged around the idea that genetic cases differ from non-genetic cases (e.g., involving a threat of violence or the spread of an infectious disease) along two related dimensions: (1) In genetic cases, the risk of harm is already present in an at-risk third party, whereas in non-genetic cases, it is not; and (2) In genetic cases, the patient does not create a risk of harm to a third party, whereas in non-genetic cases, the patient does. I argue that these distinctions do not exclusively differentiate genetic from non-genetic cases and should not bear on the permissibility of breaching confidentiality. Instead, such determinations should be based on other considerations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Bioethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2388719\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2388719","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当患者拒绝告知有遗传病风险的亲属时,就会出现有关保密的伦理问题。具体来说,医疗服务提供者可能会纠结于是否允许违反保密原则来警告患者的高危亲属。在探讨这个问题时,几位作者的观点趋于一致,即遗传案例与非遗传案例(如涉及暴力威胁或传染病传播)在两个相关方面有所不同:(1)在遗传案例中,伤害风险已经存在于有风险的第三方,而在非遗传案例中,伤害风险并不存在;(2)在遗传案例中,患者并没有给第三方造成伤害风险,而在非遗传案例中,患者造成了伤害风险。我认为,这些区别并不能完全区分遗传与非遗传案件,也不应影响违反保密的允许性。相反,这种决定应基于其他考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Breaching Confidentiality in Genetic and Non-Genetic Cases: Two Problematic Distinctions.

Ethical questions about confidentiality arise when patients refuse to inform relatives who are at risk of a genetic condition. Specifically, healthcare providers may struggle with the permissibility of breaching confidentiality to warn patients' at-risk relatives. In exploring this issue, several authors have converged around the idea that genetic cases differ from non-genetic cases (e.g., involving a threat of violence or the spread of an infectious disease) along two related dimensions: (1) In genetic cases, the risk of harm is already present in an at-risk third party, whereas in non-genetic cases, it is not; and (2) In genetic cases, the patient does not create a risk of harm to a third party, whereas in non-genetic cases, the patient does. I argue that these distinctions do not exclusively differentiate genetic from non-genetic cases and should not bear on the permissibility of breaching confidentiality. Instead, such determinations should be based on other considerations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Bioethics
American Journal of Bioethics 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
26.90%
发文量
250
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) is a renowned global publication focused on bioethics. It tackles pressing ethical challenges in the realm of health sciences. With a commitment to the original vision of bioethics, AJOB explores the social consequences of advancements in biomedicine. It sparks meaningful discussions that have proved invaluable to a wide range of professionals, including judges, senators, journalists, scholars, and educators. AJOB covers various areas of interest, such as the ethical implications of clinical research, ensuring access to healthcare services, and the responsible handling of medical records and data. The journal welcomes contributions in the form of target articles presenting original research, open peer commentaries facilitating a dialogue, book reviews, and responses to open peer commentaries. By presenting insightful and authoritative content, AJOB continues to shape the field of bioethics and engage diverse stakeholders in crucial conversations about the intersection of medicine, ethics, and society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信