I mean I can tell my lawyer if I committed a crime and it’s attorney client privilege. I can tell my wife or husband and we are protected not to squeal on each other. Same thing about telling a priest it is privileged information. How come a nurse or doctor is required to report it. I mean non of the above are life and death but a confession from a patient should be privileged in my opinion why is it not? Like if a person says they use meth or whatever, we really don’t report it. But if he get’s in a wreck and only causes himself or herself injury why are we to report it to the police does not HIPPA cover this?
Not being a dick or looking for a fight. Where do you live at? The only thing I know of remotely close is a doctor can not talk to other people about your condition (though they regularly do). Or they can “read between lines” and we know what they are talking about and whom. I tried my damnedest to live by the do no harm philosophy. Like the Hippocratic oath says. May be the greedy part of me but I like to sleep at night.
I live in the UK. Patient confidentiality is protected by law - medical personnel cannot share personal information unless the patient gives explicit consent (with some latitude when someone is incapacitated and has a spouse/next of kin)
However there are some explicit limits. Medical professionals also have legal duties under Safeguarding laws; there is a professional and legal requirement to divulge information if it is necessary to protect the patient or other people from harm. If someone confesses to a crime it can be shared if there is a risk to other people (e.g. child or domestic abuse being sadly common examples). It’s on a case by case basis; it would be a breach of patient confidentiality to share a confession if no one is at risk of harm. But where you draw the line is difficult - there is established case law that confidentiality can be breached “in the public interest” which is very subjective.
But it’s obviously very subjective territory - if someone confesses to a murder 20 years ago, should you share it? You could argue that there is a risk that someone who has murdered may murder again, but you could also argue that there is no actual reason to suspect they would commit further crime especially if they’re dying. It’s also “in the public interest” to investigate murder and convict someone, especially if it prevents someone else from being falsely accused etc. It can be argued multiple ways, but most likely divulging that information to the police would be deemed an acceptable breach under the law.
One key part of all this is that a breach of patient confidentiality is a legal issue and the person &/or organisation (e.g hospital) can be pursued legally for the breach, including for compensation, and also via professional bodies for sanctions. So breaches can be pursued legally. So there is some recourse, but even if there is a breach, the information is still legally admissible in a trial.
It’s very complex and difficult to blanket say all information is 100% confidential. A lawyer is retained specifically to represent someone under the law, so a 100% confidentiality makes sense. A doctor or nurse is there to look after someone’s health, but also has responsibilities to the population at large, so confidentiality comes with caveats as you’re balancing the safety of the one patient against other unknown people.