Search

Millions of patients present to US EDs each year with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but fewer than 10% are ultimately diagnosed with ACS. Well-tested and externally validated accelerated diagnostic protocols were developed to aid providers in risk stratifying patients with possible ACS and have become central components of current ED practice guidelines. Nevertheless, the fear of missing ACS continues to be a strong motivator for ED providers to pursue further testing for their patients. An ethical dilemma arises when the provider must balance the risk of ACS if the patient is discharged compared with the potential harms caused by a cardiac workup. Providers should be familiar with the ethical principles relevant to this dilemma in order to determine what is in the best interests of the patient.

Emergency physicians frequently interact with law enforcement officers and patients in their custody. As always, the emergency physician's primary professional responsibility is to promote patient welfare, and his or her first duty is to the patient. Emergency physicians should treat criminals, suspects, and prisoners with the same respect and attention they afford other patients while ensuring the safety of staff, visitors, and other patients. Respect for patient privacy and protection of confidentiality are of paramount importance to the patient-physician relationship. Simultaneously, emergency physicians should attempt to accommodate law enforcement personnel in a professional manner, enlisting their aid when necessary. Often this relates to the emergency physician's socially imposed duties, governed by state laws, to report infectious diseases, suspicion of abuse or neglect, and threats of harm. It is the emergency physician's duty to maintain patient confidentiality while complying with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations and state law.

There is considerable diversity in compensation models in the specialty of Emergency Medicine (EM). We review different compensation models and examine moral consequences possibly associated with the use of various models. The article will consider how different models may promote or undermine health care's quadruple aim of providing quality care, improving population health, reducing health care costs, and improving the work-life balance of health care professionals. It will also assess how different models may promote or undermine the basic bioethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice.

Physician-assisted death (PAD) has long been a strongly debated moral and public policy issue in the United States, and an increasing number of jurisdictions have legalized this practice under certain circumstances. In light of changing terminology, laws, public and professional attitudes, and the availability of published data about the practice, we review key concepts and terms in the ongoing PAD debate, moral arguments for and against PAD, the current legal status of PAD in the United States and in other nations, and data on the reported experience with PAD in those U.S. jurisdictions where it is a legal practice. We then identify situations in which emergency physicians (EPs) may encounter patients who request PAD or have attempted to end their lives with physician assistance and consider EP responses in those situations. Based on our analysis, we offer recommendations for emergency medical practice and professional association policy.

This article revisits the persistent problem of crowding in US hospital emergency departments (EDs). It begins with a brief review of origins of this problem, terms used to refer to ED crowding, proposed definitions and measures of crowding, and causal factors. The article then summarizes recent studies that document adverse moral consequences of ED crowding, including poorer patient outcomes; increased medical errors; compromises in patient physical privacy, confidentiality, and communication; and provider moral distress. It describes several organizational strategies implemented to relieve crowding and implications of ED crowding for individual practitioners. The article concludes that ED crowding remains a morally significant problem and calls on emergency physicians, ED and hospital leaders, emergency medicine professional associations, and policymakers to collaborate on solutions.

Ambulance diversion is a common and controversial method used by emergency departments (EDs) to reduce stress on individual departments and providers and relieve mismatches in the supply and demand for ED beds. Under this strategy, ambulances bound for one hospital are redirected to another, usually under policies established by regional emergency medical services systems. Other responses to this mismatch include maladaptive behaviors (such as "boarding" in "hallway beds") and the development of terminology intended to normalize these practices, all of which are reviewed in this article. We examine the history and causes of diversion as well as the ethical foundations and practical consequences of it. We contend that (1) from a moral viewpoint, the most important stakeholder is the individual patient because diversion decisions are usually relative rather than absolute; (2) decisions regarding ambulance diversion should be made with careful consideration of individual patient preferences, local and state emergency medical services laws, and institutional surge capacity; and (3) authorities should consider the potential positive effects of a regional or statewide ban on diversion.

The five chapters in Part I of this volume provide a general introduction to the field of health care ethics, including its purpose, history, methods, and relation to the domains of law and culture. The account of the nature, scope, and limits of health care ethics provided in these chapters is designed to set the stage for examination of the multiple specific topics in ethics and health care in the subsequent chapters of the book. Chapter 1, “The role of ethics in health care,” begins with a description of several concepts of ethics, common sources of moral guidance, and methods for resolving moral disagreements. It then considers the relation of ethics and health care, arguing that ethical issues are especially prominent in health care. This prominence is a result both of the importance of the human interests at stake and of the complexity of many treatment decisions. Ethics can guide difficult choices in health care, but decisions also depend on factual information, and even the most careful moral reasoning may not produce a unique and definitive “correct” solution. Chapter 2, “A brief history of health care ethics and clinical ethics consultation in the United States,” describes the emergence of health care ethics as a new field of inquiry and practice in the latter half of the twentieth century. This review highlights major changes in the US health care system during this period. It also identifies three high-profile events that called public attention to moral issues in medical research and practice: investigative reports condemning the decades-long Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in poor black men, the US Supreme Court abortion decision in Roe v. Wade , and the New Jersey Supreme Court Quinlan decision on rights to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. Chapter 2 also outlines the development of the practice of clinical ethics consultation in US health care facilities. From its origins in the 1970s, clinical ethics consultation has become a widely available service designed to help health care professionals, patients, and families make difficult moral choices about medical treatment. Chapter 3, “Methods of health care ethics,” summarizes a variety of different approaches that scholars have proposed for moral reasoning in health care settings. These approaches recommend different theoretical tools and strategies to guide moral deliberation, including basic principles, paradigmatic cases, moral rules, and moral virtues. This chapter also describes a simple, step-by-step procedure for analyzing health care ethics cases.

Case example Thirty-year-old Mr. Edward Dawson, an investment manager in a large bank, collapses one afternoon in his office. His assistant immediately calls 911. Emergency medical technicians respond rapidly, recognize that Mr. Dawson is in cardiac arrest, begin cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubate Mr. Dawson, and transport him to nearby Downtown Medical Center, where he is placed on a ventilator and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. Physical examination and diagnostic imaging reveal that he has suffered a severe anoxic brain injury, and he does not regain consciousness. Eight weeks later, Mr. Dawson's medical condition is unchanged. A consulting neurologist informs his wife that, although he does not satisfy all of the neurologic criteria for the determination of death, his brain injury is extensive and irreversible. The neurologist explains that it is highly unlikely that Mr. Dawson will ever regain consciousness or the ability to breathe on his own . Mr. Dawson had been married just four months before this accident. Dr. Milam, his attending physician, offers Mrs. Dawson the option that ventilator support be withdrawn and Mr. Dawson be allowed to die. Mrs. Dawson agrees with this treatment plan, but requests that, before the ventilator is withdrawn, her husband's sperm be recovered for artificial insemination at a later date. She reports that they had intended to have children in the course of the marriage, and that she would like to fulfill that goal. How should Dr. Milam respond? Overcoming infertility Reproduction is, of course, a natural process essential for the survival of any biological species, but not all individual organisms have the ability or the opportunity to reproduce. For most human beings, reproduction is also a life-changing event with great personal and moral significance. People who desire children and who experience difficulty reproducing may therefore seek medical assistance in achieving that goal. Human infertility is, in fact, a relatively common condition. According to a US National Survey of Family Growth conducted between 2006 and 2010, 6 percent of all married women aged 15–44 (1.5 million women) were infertile, where infertility was defined as having been sexually active without using contraceptive measures over the past twelve months and not having become pregnant. In the same survey, 11.5 percent of all men aged 25–44 who were not surgically sterile reported inability or difficulty fathering a child.

Case example On April 15, 1975, 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan attended a friend's birthday party at a bar near her home in New Jersey. Karen was on a strict diet at the time, and she was also taking the anti-anxiety drug diazepam (Valium ® ). After several drinks at the party, Karen felt faint, and friends took her home and put her to bed. When they checked on her fifteen minutes later, she had stopped breathing. They attempted to revive her and called for assistance. Emergency medical technicians arrived, continued cardio-pulmonary resuscitation efforts, and transported Karen to a nearby hospital, where she was placed on a mechanical ventilator . Karen remained hospitalized, on ventilator support, for the next several months, but she did not regain consciousness. Neurologists diagnosed her condition as a “persistent vegetative state,” a form of irreversible unconsciousness caused by lack of oxygen to her brain during the time when she was not breathing. Karen did, however, retain some brain activity. She did not meet established brain-oriented legal and medical criteria for death (sometimes called “brain death”), since those criteria require a finding of “irreversible cessation of total brain function.” Her physicians were convinced that Karen could not survive without ongoing ventilator support . Karen's parents, Joseph and Julia Quinlan, had consented to all recommended life-sustaining treatments for their daughter during the first three months of her hospitalization. By the end of July 1975, however, they reached the conclusion that Karen would not want continuing life-sustaining treatment in a state of permanent unconsciousness. The Quinlans were devout Roman Catholics; after consultation with their parish priest, they requested that Karen's ventilator support be discontinued and that she be allowed to die. Karen's physicians responded that they could not honor this request, on the grounds that removing Karen's ventilator support would be a form of euthanasia that would be immoral, illegal, and contrary to medical standards of care. Karen was a patient at St. Claire's Hospital, and the hospital supported the physicians’ decision to continue ventilator support. What should have been done to resolve this disagreement? With the rapid expansion of health care services in the United States in the decades immediately following World War II, patients, health care professionals, and the American public at large confronted new and challenging moral questions about what treatments should be offered and provided, especially near the beginning and the end of human life.

Part I. Ethics in Health Care: Role, History, and Methods: 1. The role of ethics in health care 2. A brief history of health care ethics and clinical ethics consultation in the United States 3. Methods of health care ethics 4. Law and ethics in health care 5. Culture and ethics in health care Part II. Moral Foundations of the Therapeutic Relationship: 6. Privacy and confidentiality 7. Truthfulness 8. Informed consent to treatment 9. Surrogate decision-making 10. Professionalism: responsibilities and privileges 11. Resource stewardship Part III. Controversies in Health Care Ethics: Treatment Choices at the Beginning and at the End of Life: 12. Assisted reproductive technologies 13. Abortion 14. Maternal-fetal conflict 15. Advance care planning and advance directives 16. Moral conflicts in end-of-life care 17. Medical futility 18. Aid in dying Part IV. Ethics in Special Contexts: Biomedical Research, Genetics, and Organ Transplantation: 19. Research on human subjects 20. The genetic revolution 21. Organ transplantation For further reading References Index.

The recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, and the ongoing debate over reform of the U.S. health care system, raise numerous important ethical issues. This article reviews basic provisions of the ACA; examines underlying moral and policy issues in the U.S. health care reform debate; and addresses health care reform's likely effects on access to care, emergency department (ED) crowding, and end-of-life care. The article concludes with several suggested actions that emergency physicians (EPs) should take to contribute to the success of health care reform in America.

In October 2009, the board of directors of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) approved a major revision to ACEP's "Gifts to Emergency Physicians from Industry" policy. The revised policy is a response to increasing debate and calls for restriction of the long-standing biomedical industry practice of giving promotional gifts to individual physicians. This article outlines the history of professional attention to gift giving and reviews recent contributions to the ongoing debate over its justifiability, including professional association recommendations for limitation or prohibition of the practice. The article concludes with a description of the provisions of the revised ACEP gifts policy and brief reflection on the future of this practice.

Part 1 of this 2-article series reviews serious moral problems created by emergency department (ED) crowding. In this second part of the series, we identify and describe operational and financial barriers to resolving the crisis of ED crowding, along with a variety of institutional and public policy strategies proposed or implemented to overcome those barriers. Finally, the article evaluates 2 additional actions designed to address the problem of ED crowding, namely, distribution of a warning statement to ED patients and implementation of a "reverse triage" system for safe early discharge of hospital inpatients.

Most disaster plans depend on using emergency physicians, nurses, emergency department support staff, and out-of-hospital personnel to maintain the health care system's front line during crises that involve personal risk to themselves or their families. Planners automatically assume that emergency health care workers will respond. However, we need to ask: Should they, and will they, work rather than flee? The answer involves basic moral and personal issues. This article identifies and examines the factors that influence health care workers' decisions in these situations. After reviewing physicians' response to past disasters and epidemics, we evaluate how much danger they actually faced. Next, we examine guidelines from medical professional organizations about physicians' duty to provide care despite personal risks, although we acknowledge that individuals will interpret and apply professional expectations and norms according to their own situation and values. The article goes on to articulate moral arguments for a duty to treat during disasters and social crises, as well as moral reasons that may limit or override such a duty. How fear influences behavior is examined, as are the institutional and social measures that can be taken to control fear and to encourage health professionals to provide treatment in crisis situations. Finally, the article emphasizes the importance of effective risk communication in enabling health care professionals and the public to make informed and defensible decisions during disasters. We conclude that the decision to stay or leave will ultimately depend on individuals' risk assessment and their value systems. Preparations for the next pandemic or disaster should include policies that encourage emergency physicians, who are inevitably among those at highest risk, to "stay and fight."

Background Physicians strive to respect the autonomy of patients. The emergent care of Jehovah's Witnesses, however, leaves health care providers struggling with ethical and legal questions. These are further compounded when the patient in question is a minor. Case A girl aged 15 years presented with anemia, a large ovarian mass, massive hemoperitoneum, and parents who were devout Jehovah's Witnesses who refused administration of blood products. Following discussion of the patient's condition and treatment options with the patient, her family, members of the treatment team, and consultants, the patient was transferred to a hospital that offered a blood conservation program for surgical patients. The patient received surgical management without the need for blood transfusion. Her surgeons, however, reserved the legal right to give blood if an emergent need arose despite the lack of parental consent. Conclusion Society grants considerable legal latitude in dealing with Jehovah's Witness minors, and physicians must be aware of the legal and ethical parameters surrounding the care of such patients.

Respect for privacy and confidentiality have been professional responsibilities of physicians throughout recorded history. This article reviews the moral, religious, and legal foundations of privacy and confidentiality and discusses the distinction between these two closely related concepts. Current federal and state laws are reviewed, including HIPAA regulations and their implications for research and care in the emergency department. In the emergency department, privacy and confidentiality often are challenged by physical design, crowding, visitors, film crews, communication, and other factors. These problems are reviewed, and advice and guidelines are offered for helping preserve patients' dignity and rights to privacy and confidentiality.

It is an honor and a privilege to contribute to this Festschrift celebrating the contributions of H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., to bioethics over the past four decades. Tris’ work has left an indelible mark on the modern field of bioethics that he helped to found. His prolific, highly original, and carefully argued scholarly writings continue to engage and challenge scholars around the globe. His tireless editorship of bioethics journals and books has enabled many hundreds of scholars to publish their own work and has greatly enriched the bioethics literature. His teaching and mentorship of graduate students and junior colleagues have brought scores of talented and dedicated professionals into the field. For all of these contributions, I am very grateful.

This contribution provides a summary description and analysis of H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.’s multiple publications on medical interventions that result in death, including abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and the limitation of life-prolonging treatment. In two different stages of his career, Engelhardt has taken very different positions on the morality of these interventions. From 1973 through 1990, Engelhardt defended the rights of physicians and patients to provide and receive these life-ending interventions in most circumstances. His arguments during this period appeal to the Kantian doctrine for respect for the freedom of moral agents and to a distinction between human biological and human personal life. In writings since 1990, Engelhardt condemns all medical interventions whose intent is to cause death, based on the prohibition of killing in any form in the doctrines of traditional Christianity. This is a remarkable shift in the thinking of one of the pioneers of the modern field of bioethics. At one level, the two positions Engelhardt defends are clearly inconsistent. At another level, they illustrate two different types of moral reasoning that are both acknowledged by Engelhardt. A secular pluralist ethic requires tolerance for the actions of “moral strangers” who hold very different moral beliefs from one’s own. In contrast, communities of shared belief, like that of traditional Christianity, embrace specific moral beliefs based on Church doctrine and on individual religious experience.

Part I of this article reviewed key terms, events, and arguments in the heated national debate regarding physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Part II of the article examines the role of emergency physicians in caring for patients who present to the emergency department after an incomplete or unsuccessful attempt at PAS. The article considers the analogous cases of emergency care for other patients who have attempted suicide and care for terminally ill patients who refuse life-sustaining treatment. Morally relevant features of these situations are identified, including the decisionmaking capacity and the choices of the patient, the opinions of the patient's family or other surrogate decisionmakers, the presenting condition and medical history of the patient, the nature of the patient's suicide attempt, and the physician's own moral convictions. The article evaluates the 3 management options: aggressive intervention to preserve life, palliative care only, and assistance in completing the suicide. It concludes with several general recommendations for addressing these situations.

The practice of emergency medicine routinely requires rapid decisionmaking regarding various interventions and therapies. Such decisions should be based on the expected risks and benefits to the patient, family, and society. At times, certain interventions and therapies may be considered "futile," or of low expected likelihood of benefit to the patient. Various interpretations of the term "futility" and its practical application to the practice of emergency medicine are explored, as well as background information and potential application of various legal, ethical, and organizational policies regarding the determination of "futility. "Decisions regarding potential benefit of interventions should be based on scientific evidence, societal consensus, and professional standards, not on individual bias regarding quality of life or other subjective matters. Physicians are under no ethical obligation to provide treatments they judge to have no realistic likelihood of benefit to the patient. Decisions to withhold treatment should be made with careful consideration of scientific evidence of likelihood of medical benefit, other benefits (including intangible benefits), potential risks of the proposed intervention, patient preferences, and family wishes. When certain interventions are withheld, special efforts should be made to maintain effective communication, comfort, support, and counseling for the patient, family, and friends.

Organ transplantation has enjoyed continuing success in North America, with steadily increasing numbers of transplants and increasing graft survival rates. This success has stimulated strong demand for transplantation, and the number of patients waiting for transplants has grown much more rapidly than the number of available organs. As a result, patients must wait much longer to receive a transplant, and more patients die while waiting. In response to the increasing shortage of organs, various initiatives have been proposed to increase the number of available organs. This article reviews the moral dimensions of recent organ procurement initiatives. The article also reviews current and proposed US criteria for allocating transplant organs to waiting patients.

As the pool of available health care resources continues to evaporate, emergency physicians will be increasingly required to guard against the provision of expensive, unnecessary, and marginally beneficial care. This article proposes that emergency physicians embrace the ethic of prudent resource stewardship to ensure the continued availability of emergency services to all who need them. When making resource allocation decisions, emergency physicians must consider the likelihood, magnitude, and duration of benefits to patients, the urgency of the condition, and the cost and burdens of treatment to patients, payers, and society. These considerations go beyond professional duties to individual patients and suggest that ignoring the burdens of emergency department microallocation decisions is socially and morally irresponsible.

Outcome scores have been promoted as adjuncts to clinical decision making, especially when further care is thought to be futile. The Pediatric Risk of Mortality score is used to calculate the risk of mortality for patients admitted to pediatric intensive care units. In this article the Pediatric Risk of Mortality score in evaluated for its ability to contribute to individual patient care decisions in the context of clinical practice. Through analysis several features of the Pediatric Risk of Mortality score were identified that require discretion if the score is to be used in decisions involving individual patients. These features include variability and bias introduced in data collection and data presentation. Also, outcome scores do not allow for the incorporation of patient and family values into the decision process. Outcome scores can provide some adjunctive information to clinicians, but they should be used with caution when making patient care decisions. Use of Pediatric Risk of Mortality scores in clinical practice must be tempered with a knowledge of the limitations of the scores, individual patient variability, the conditions under which the scores have been validated and collected and, most importantly, an awareness that outcome scores do not take into account the caregiver and patient values that are inherent in any treatment decision.

Pediatricians should be aware of the cultural issues surrounding body image when they counsel certain patients and their parents about the importance of weight loss and the related health concerns. Virtual Mentor is a monthly bioethics journal published by the American Medical Association.

The increasing provision of nonurgent care in American emergency rooms might be not only inevitable, but, all things considered, fairly effective. Virtual Mentor is a monthly bioethics journal published by the American Medical Association.

Summary Confidentiality is a promise rooted in tradition, law andmedical ethics. Emergency physicians treat a variety of patients to whom confidentiality is of vital importance: employees, celebrities, victims of violence or disaster, minors, students, criminals, drug abusers, and patients with STDs. EDs should develop methods of ensuring confidentiality for all patients. 34 Although confidentiality is an important principle thatshould be respected and guarded, it is not absolute. Various laws mandate disclosure of certain patient information; in addition, an overriding moral duty may occasionally require, a breach of confidentiality. As Beauchamp and Childress noted, "the therapeutic role may sometimes have to yield to ones role as citizen and as protector of the interests of others". 19 In general, however, circumstances requiring a breach of confidentiality are rare.

The National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) was formulated to provide medical care for casualties of future large-scale natural disasters and military conflicts. We sent questionnaires to the 59 emergency medical directors of North Carolina's participating hospitals in order to assess their views regarding the need for NDMS and the level of their hospital's preparedness. Responses were received from 78% (46) of the physicians surveyed. Of those responding, an overwhelming majority supported the need for a national plan like NDMS to treat casualties of a natural disaster or an overseas military conflict. Respondents also agreed that the participation of emergency department personnel, other physicians, and support personnel is essential for successful activation of NDMS. Responses to questions regarding level of preparedness, however, suggested that there is less than an optimal degree of preparedness for participation in NDMS.

Crowding is an increasingly common occurrence in hospital-based emergency departments (EDs) across the globe. This 2-article series offers an ethical and policy analysis of ED crowding. Part 1 begins with a discussion of terms used to describe this situation and proposes that the term "crowding" be preferred to "overcrowding." The article discusses definitions, measures, and causes of ED crowding and concludes that the inability to transfer emergency patients to inpatient beds and resultant boarding of admitted patients in the ED are among the root causes of ED crowding. Finally, the article identifies and describes a variety of adverse moral consequences of ED crowding, including increased risks of harm to patients, delays in providing needed care, compromised privacy and confidentiality, impaired communication, and diminished access to care. Part 2 of the series examines barriers to resolving the problem of ED crowding and strategies proposed to overcome those barriers.

Instruction in medical ethics has become standard in undergraduate medical education within the past decade; more recently, several specialty boards have formally endorsed ethics teaching and evaluation for residents as well. However, the current emergency medicine Core Content, representing emergency medicine's central body of knowledge, makes no specific mention of ethics. An ethics curriculum is proposed to remedy this gap in the emergency medicine residency curriculum. Issues frequently encountered in the emergency department are emphasized, and topics include moral foundations of clinical medicine, the unique ethical concerns of emergency medicine, patient competence, informed consent and refusal of treatment, truthfulness, confidentiality, foregoing life-sustaining treatment, duty to provide care, moral issues in disaster medicine, allocation of health care, and research and teaching involving human subjects. Educational objectives and readings for each of these topics are presented along with sample case scenarios to be used in a small group discussion format.

Due to the distinctive features of the hospital emergency department and its patients, emergency physicians confront special challenges in respecting patient rights to informed consent to treatment. After a brief review of the doctrine of informed consent and of its significance in the emergency department, this article will examine three specific challenges for informed consent and refusal of treatment in emergency medicine: (1) assessing patient decision-making capacity, (2) performing procedures on the newly dead, and (3) making treatment decisions for patients in legal custody.

Based on a comparison of studies of patient desires regarding end-of-life care and of the actual course of end-of-life care, this article concludes that there is a significant discrepancy in the United States between the kind of care most people want and the kind of care they in fact receive. The article offers a case example to illustrate one type of dilemma commonly encountered in end-of-life care. It then introduces and describes the practice of advance care planning. Use of advance care planning, it is argued, can prevent moral dilemmas and improve end-of-life care.

Gifts to physicians by the pharmaceutical industry pose numerous ethical questions. Although individual patients and physicians may benefit financially and educationally from certain gifts, the risk of bias resulting from such gifts makes them ethically challenging. After a brief description of the nature and scope of the practice of gift giving, this article examines major arguments for and against this practice. We then review the development of guidelines by professional societies, trade organizations, and government agencies. We conclude with a list of summary recommendations designed to help individual physicians, educators, and administrators engage in careful reflection and analysis and make sound ethical decisions about acceptance of gifts.

Part I of this article reviewed the concepts of privacy and confidentiality and described the moral and legal foundations and limits of these values in health care. Part II highlights specific privacy and confidentiality issues encountered in the emergency department (ED). Discussed first are physical privacy issues in the ED, including problems of ED design and crowding, issues of patient and staff safety, the presence of visitors, law enforcement officers, students, and other observers, and filming activities. The article then examines confidentiality issues in the ED, including protecting medical records, the duty to warn, reportable conditions, telephone inquiries, media requests, communication among health care professionals, habitual patient files, the use of patient images, electronic communication, and information about minor patients.