Search

Patients leave ED for a variety of reasons and at all stages of care. In Australian law, clinicians and health services owe a duty of care to people presenting to the ED for care, even if they have not yet entered a treatment space. There is also a positive duty to warn patients of material risks associated with their condition, proposed treatment(s), reasonable alternative treatment options and the likely effect of their healthcare decisions, including refusing treatment. This extends to a decision to leave the ED before care is completed. The form of that warning may vary based on what is known about the patient's condition and the associated risks at the time. Specific documentation of warnings given is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before providing any form of medical treatment, medical practitioners are generally required to discharge their duty to warn. It is argued in this article that the duty to warn, at least as it relates to frail and elderly patients, requires the principles of shared decision-making to be adopted. Doing so will ensure a comprehensive biopsychosocial understanding of the patient and assist in identifying material risks that may not be readily apparent. Such risks include risks that threaten the patient's values, preferences, treatment aims and long-term outcomes. Once such risks are identified, in discharging the duty to warn, they should be contextualised in a manner that makes clear how that risk will manifest in that particular patient. These risks should then also be synthesised within the context of their other medical issues and longer-term interests. Finally, it is suggested that the traditional consent process may need restructuring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing use of social media in forensic mental health evaluations will lead to new challenges that must be resolved by forensic practitioners and the legal system. One such dilemma is the discovery of information that would typically trigger a legal duty and professional ethics obligation for mental health professionals to breach doctor‐patient confidentiality to promote public safety and prevent harm to vulnerable third parties. Although the law and professional organizations offer clear guidance for practitioners in the treatment role, there is currently no clarity from the law or instruction from professional organizations on what mental health professionals should do if they discover such information during a confidential forensic evaluation. For example, a forensic evaluator may find evidence on social media of an evaluee's threats to seriously harm others, abuse of children and the elderly, or severely impaired driving. There are no clear guidelines for how a forensic psychiatrist should respond in these complicated situations. We review the legal concepts and historical evolution of confidentiality, privilege, and mandated reporter duties that forensic practitioners should consider in these legally ambiguous situations. Finally, we discuss ethics frameworks practitioners can implement to determine their most ethical course of action when faced with such dilemmas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews evolving legal implications for clinicians and researchers as genomics is used more widely in both the clinic and in translational research, reflecting rapid changes in scientific knowledge as well as the surrounding cultural and political environment. Professionals will face new and changing duties to make or act upon a genetic diagnosis, address direct-to-consumer genetic testing in patient care, consider the health implications of results for patients' family members, and recontact patients when test results change over time. Professional duties in reproductive genetic testing will need to be recalibrated in response to disruptive changes to reproductive rights in the United States. We also review the debate over who controls the flow of genetic information and who is responsible for its protection, considering the globally influential European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the rapidly evolving data privacy law landscape of the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1976, the Supreme Court of California issued its well‐known Tarasoff Principle. From this principle, other courts found a duty to warn, and some found more than just a duty to warn, a duty to protect. As courts in other states adopted a version of the Tarasoff Principle, they issued a wide variety of third‐party liability rules. In light of the dynamic, everchanging Tarasoff jurisprudence in the United States and recent relevant appellate court opinion in Missouri, a timely updated summary and update of Tarasoff‐related jurisprudence in Missouri is warranted. In the present analysis, we compiled the four appellate court decisions that pertained to the questions of Tarasoff‐like third‐party liability in the State of Missouri: Sherrill v. Wilson (1983), Matt v. Burrell (1995), Bradley v. Ray (1995), and Virgin v. Hopewell (2001). We reviewed all legal measures for clinicians to protect nonpatients in Missouri, not just those that relate to protecting nonpatients from violence as in a Tarasof‐like scenario. Thus, this paper concisely provides a compendium of such options and allows for a meaningful comparison of which legal, protective measures are mandatory and which are permissive, thereby evoking the question of whether measures of protecting nonpatients from a patient's violent acts ought to be mandatory duties or permissive application of professional judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents three medical-legal cases that define a physician’s duty to warn and include caveats on medical practice within the scope of the law. Some physicians may not recognize that these legal and liability requirements extend not only to physical danger, but also to infectious diseases, medical illness, and drug effects.

Abstract Background With advances in sequencing technologies, increasing numbers of people are being informed about a genetic disease identified in their family. In current practice, probands (the first person in a family in whom a genetic predisposition is identified) are asked to inform at-risk relatives about the diagnosis. However, previous research has shown that relatives are sometimes not informed due to barriers such as family conflicts. Research on family communication in genetic diseases aims to explore the difficulties encountered in informing relatives and to identify ways to support probands in this. Main body Research on family communication may also reveal that participants did not inform their relatives about the risk of a serious genetic condition, even when preventive and treatment options are available. Researchers may then face a dilemma: Do they need to warn at-risk relatives about the finding? Or do they keep silent due to prior confidentiality agreements with study participants? Conclusions We believe that the absolute confidence promised to research participants outweighs the interests of their relatives, even though it can be claimed that relatives at risk of a genetic disease do, in principle, have a right to know information collected about their health. Not respecting confidentiality agreements could cause distrust between researchers and research participants and possibly harm the relationship between probands and relatives. Relatives' health interests can still be taken into account without jeopardizing participant trust, by considering alternative scenarios, including sharing general study findings on the barriers participants experience with their healthcare professionals and by offering participants psychosocial support for family communication.

Since the Tarasoff case of 1976, mental health professionals are recognized to have a "duty to protect" third‐party targets from violence‐threatening patients, but little is known about what happens after clinicians warn law enforcement. In 2000, Huber et al. published a study that surveyed Michigan police about "Tarasoff warnings." We conducted a 20‐year follow‐up study, inviting all Michigan police and sheriff departments to participate. There were no significant differences between studies about knowledge of Tarasoff‐related policies, which was low in both surveys. We found significant decreases in the number of officers who had ever intervened due to warning calls. Of the survey respondents, 83% supported documenting warning calls. For those who received warnings, 96% followed up with at least one intervention. In both studies, notifying other officers was the most common action taken. 56% said they would take action to remove a firearm. We identified opportunities for training law enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background When a genetic mutation is identified in a family member (proband), internationally, it is usually the proband’s or another responsible family member’s role to disclose the information to at-risk relatives. However, both active and passive non-disclosure in families occurs: choosing not to communicate the information or failing to communicate the information despite intention to do so, respectively. The ethical obligations to prevent harm to at-risk relatives and promote the duty of care by genetic health professionals (GHPs) is in conflict with Privacy laws and professional regulations that prohibits disclosure of information to a third party without the consent of the proband (duty of confidentiality). In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, amendments to Privacy legislation permits such disclosure to living genetic relatives with the process defined under guidelines although there is no legal duty to warn. This study assessed NSW GHP’s awareness and experience of the legislation and guidelines. Methods An online survey collected demographics; theoretical knowledge; clinical scenarios to assess application knowledge; attitudes; confidence; experience with active non-disclosure. A link to correct answers was provided after completion. Knowledge scores above the median for non-parametric data or above the mean for parametric data were classified as ‘good’ or ‘poor’. Chi square tests assessed associations between confidence and knowledge scores. Results While many of the 37 participants reported reading the guidelines, there was limited awareness of their scope and clinical application; that there is no legal duty to warn; and that the threat does not need to be imminent to warrant disclosure. No association between confidence and ‘good’ theoretical or applied clinical knowledge was identified. Uncertainty of their professional responsibility was identified and in the several case examples of active non-disclosure that were reported this uncertainty reflected the need for further understanding of the guidelines in regard to the processes required before disclosure was initiated. Conclusions There is a need for further education and training about the guidelines associated with the legislation that would be relevant to support disclosure. The findings may inform future strategies to support introduction of policy changes in other jurisdictions where similar regulatory regimes are introduced.

Vytopil explores whether (developments in) the regulatory framework provide for a duty to warn regarding the health risks associated with the (excessive) consumption of sugar-rich products such as soft drinks and sweets, simiar to the duty to warn the consumer in respect of health risks associated with tobacco. Vytopil concludes that despite the undeniable health risks associated with (excessive) consumption of sugar-rich products, the parallel between sugar-rich products and tobacco only carries so far. This is mainly because both the Dutch government and the EU assume a restrained regulatory role with regard to warnings in respect of unhealthy food. Consumers could be better informed about the health risks associated with consumption of sugar-rich products, if the Dutch government would make better use of its options for regulation. In that case, a transparent, graphic system of information provision would be preferable.

Background: With advances in sequencing technologies, increasing numbers of people are being informed about a genetic disease identified in their family. In current practice, probands (the first person in a family in whom a genetic predisposition is identified) are asked to inform at-risk relatives about the diagnosis. However, previous research has shown that relatives are sometimes not informed due to barriers such as family conflicts. Research on family communication in genetic diseases aims to explore the difficulties encountered in informing relatives and to identify ways to support probands in this.Main Body: Research on family communication may also reveal that participants did not inform their relatives about the risk of a serious genetic condition, even when preventive and treatment options are available. Researchers may then face a dilemma: Do they need to warn at-risk relatives about the finding? Or do they keep silent due to prior confidentiality agreements with study participants?Conclusions: We believe that the absolute confidence promised to research participants outweighs the interests of their relatives, even though it can be claimed that relatives at risk of a genetic disease do, in principle, have a right to know information collected about their health. Not respecting confidentiality agreements could cause distrust between researchers and research participants and possibly harm the relationship between probands and relatives. Relatives' health interests can still be taken into account without jeopardizing participant trust, by considering alternative scenarios, including sharing general study findings on the barriers participants experience with their healthcare professionals and by offering participants psychosocial support for family communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disasters may impact air quality through the generation of high levels of potentially pathogenic particulate matter (PM), for example, in a volcanic eruption. Depending on the concentrations of particles in the air, their size and composition, and the duration of exposure, high levels of PM can create significant public health issues. It has been argued that air pollution, in and of itself, is a public health crisis. One possible intervention to reduce exposure to high levels of PM during an air pollution disaster (APD) is using facemasks. However, agencies may be reluctant to recommend or distribute facemasks for community use during APDs for a variety of reasons, including concerns about liability. There has been no analysis of these concerns. This paper analyzes whether agencies may have a legal duty of care in negligence to provide warnings about the health risks associated with APDs and/or to recommend facemasks as a protective mechanism for community use to reduce exposure to PM. It is also the first to examine the potential for liability in negligence, when a decision is made to distribute facemasks for community use during an APD and the receiver alleges that they sustained a personal injury and seeks compensation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(5):559-565.]

Public health agencies regularly survey randomly selected anonymous students to track drug use, sexual activities, and other risk behaviors. Students are unidentifiable, but a recent project that included school-level analysis discovered a school with alarmingly prevalent student suicidality. Given confidentiality protocols typical of surveillance, the surveyors were uncertain whether and how to intervene. We searched literature for duties to warn at-risk groups discovered during public health surveillance, but we found no directly applicable guidance or cases. Reasoning by analogy, we conclude that surveyors should contact the school's leaders to call attention to its outlier status, but public warning is unwarranted. However, such an ad hoc decision to issue a warning, even if only to school leaders, raises significant practical, legal and ethical issues. National public health and education associations should produce guidance that clarifies ethical and legal duties owed to schools and students involved in population health-risk surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Bioetica is the property of Conselho Federal de Medicina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Bioetica is the property of Conselho Federal de Medicina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: When a genetic mutation is identified in a family member (proband), internationally, it is usually the proband's or another responsible family member's role to disclose the information to at-risk relatives. However, both active and passive non-disclosure in families occurs: choosing not to communicate the information or failing to communicate the information despite intention to do so, respectively. The ethical obligations to prevent harm to at-risk relatives and promote the duty of care by genetic health professionals (GHPs) is in conflict with Privacy laws and professional regulations that prohibits disclosure of information to a third party without the consent of the proband (duty of confidentiality). In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, amendments to Privacy legislation permits such disclosure to living genetic relatives with the process defined under guidelines although there is no legal duty to warn. This study assessed NSW GHP's awareness and experience of the legislation and guidelines.Methods: An online survey collected demographics; theoretical knowledge; clinical scenarios to assess application knowledge; attitudes; confidence; experience with active non-disclosure. A link to correct answers was provided after completion. Knowledge scores above the median for non-parametric data or above the mean for parametric data were classified as 'good' or 'poor'. Chi square tests assessed associations between confidence and knowledge scores.Results: While many of the 37 participants reported reading the guidelines, there was limited awareness of their scope and clinical application; that there is no legal duty to warn; and that the threat does not need to be imminent to warrant disclosure. No association between confidence and 'good' theoretical or applied clinical knowledge was identified. Uncertainty of their professional responsibility was identified and in the several case examples of active non-disclosure that were reported this uncertainty reflected the need for further understanding of the guidelines in regard to the processes required before disclosure was initiated.Conclusions: There is a need for further education and training about the guidelines associated with the legislation that would be relevant to support disclosure. The findings may inform future strategies to support introduction of policy changes in other jurisdictions where similar regulatory regimes are introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies published over 15 years ago surveyed genetic counselors (GC) and medical geneticists (MG) to examine their clinical experiences with the conflict of "duty to warn" versus patient confidentiality. Federal and state laws pertaining to medical professionals' duty to warn have since been implemented following the publications of these studies. Using a merged version of surveys employed in the prior studies, this study seeks to understand clinicians' current decision‐making process when faced with patient refusal to inform at‐risk relatives, as well as their familiarity with and opinions of laws and guidelines covering this issue. Consistent with the previous studies, the majority of MG and almost half of GC experience patient refusal. Significantly, fewer MG and GC believe they had a duty to warn their patients' relatives of genetic risk. Only 8% of participants believe current guidelines effectively address the issue of duty to warn. Participant awareness of federal or state laws regulating the disclosure of genetic information remains low. The conflict of duty to warn remains a shared experience among genetics professionals, and resources are needed to facilitate informed decision‐making. Participants' opinions of current policies and clinical decisions may guide professional actions regarding duty to warn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vytopil explores whether (developments in) the regulatory framework provide for a duty to warn regarding the health risks associated with the (excessive) consumption of sugar-rich products such as soft drinks and sweets, simiar to the duty to warn the consumer in respect of health risks associated with tobacco. Vytopil concludes that despite the undeniable health risks associated with (excessive) consumption of sugar-rich products, the parallel between sugar-rich products and tobacco only carries so far. This is mainly because both the Dutch government and the EU assume a restrained regulatory role with regard to warnings in respect of unhealthy food. Consumers could be better informed about the health risks associated with consumption of sugar-rich products, if the Dutch government would make better use of its options for regulation. In that case, a transparent, graphic system of information provision would be preferable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the identification in a proband of a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) or a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation in Lynch syndrome (LS) he or she will be asked to inform at-risk family members about the option for presymptomatic DNA testing. However, in clinical practice multiple factors may complicate the process of information sharing. We critically evaluated studies on the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in both syndromes. A search of relevant MeSH terms and key words in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO yielded 795 articles published between 2001 and 2017. Thirty of these publications included outcome measures relevant for the current study. Based on information provided by the proband (15 studies) the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing ranged from 15 to 57% in HBOC, while one study in LS kindreds reported an uptake of 70%. Based on information provided by genetics centres (the remaining 15 studies) the uptake ranged from 21 to 44% in HBOC and from 41 to 94% in LS. However, when genetics centres contacted relatives directly a substantial number of additional family members could be tested. Proband-mediated provision of information to at-risk relatives is a standard procedure in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. However, the resulting uptake of presymptomatic testing is disappointing—an issue that is now urgent due to the increased use of genetic testing in clinical oncology. We propose that additional strategies should be introduced including the geneticist directly contacting relatives. The outcomes of these strategies should be carefully monitored and evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal law makes it a crime to threaten the President of the United States. The Secret Service conducts thousands of violence risk assessments each year. Literature suggests that 75% of individuals who make threats have been diagnosed with a mental illness (1). Studies show that prominent symptoms in presidential assassins include persecutory and grandiose delusions, hence falling into the category of psychotic disorders. We present a case of a patient diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder brought to CPEP (Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program) by the Secret Service for repeatedly dialing 911 and making threats to the President. In the past year the patient had been hospitalized three times for similar behavior. Initial presentation included acute symptoms of psychosis and mania including persecutory delusions, command auditory hallucinations, grandiosity, and thought disorder. Clinicians were faced with unique challenges and consulted the forensic service to navigate the role of the Secret Service and develop a plan to prevent future episodes. The patient was discharged with a court order for treatment, long acting medication, as well as an outpatient appointment. The treatment plan has been effective and the Secret Service has ceased their investigation. We aim to explore issues in patient confidentiality, duty to both report and protect. We will also provide strategies and recommendations for such patients on the inpatient unit.

The article focuses on concept of a duty to warn and protect refers to circumstances wherein physicians are expected to breach confidentiality to protect a named person who might be under serious threat from their patient. It mentions Canada's Supreme Court decision in the case Smith v Jones has provided some guidance on the legal obligations of physicians regarding the duty to warn. It also mentions law has mainly focused on risk of bodily harm.

The concept of "Tarasoff duty" is familiar to mental health professionals. Entwined with the name of Tarasoff, is that of Prosenjit Poddar, the other important character in the story which led to the courts giving directions for mental health professionals with regard to their duty of warn. Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff when his advances toward her were rebuffed. However, the court ruled that the mental health professional who was treating Poddar and was in knowledge of his intentions to harm Tarasoff, did not take adequate measures to warn the potential victim. This led to courts laying statutes for warning the potential victims by mental health professionals when their clients disclose such threats. However, the ruling has been a matter of debate about when to take any threat seriously and how to tread cautiously given the therapist-client privilege. The case of Prosenjit Poddar throws light on complex issues related to balancing confidentiality and potential harm to others.

Background: Most people consider health information to be highly personal, therefore confidentiality is the main issue in physician-patient relationship. However, there are some situations that the physician may feel that another person's health or well-being is in danger and there may be a duty to warn him. Making balance between these two professional obligations is not easy in all cases. Case Presentation: This case commentary is discussing about the issue of confidentiality in cancer patients, especially when the medical situation of the patient and the treatment plan could not be concealed from others. By reviewing the physician's duty of confidentiality, its importance and exceptions, the pros and cons of the issue are discussed in this paper. Controversial aspects such as the duty to warn the third party and the value of mutual arguments are also discussed. Conclusion: In cases such as breast cancer, when a patient is competent and wishing not to tell any information to her family, it is the physician's obligation to acknowledge patient's preferences. However, by shaping a good therapeutic relationship and conducting effective counseling the physician may persuade patient to share her health problem by relatives.

Genome-wide sequencing technologies are beginning to be used in projects that have both clinical diagnostic and research components. The clinical application of this technology, which generates a huge amount of information of varying diagnostic certainty, involves addressing a number of challenges to establish appropriate standards. In this article, we explore the way that UK law may respond to three of these key challenges and could establish new legal duties in relation to feedback of findings that are unrelated to the presenting condition (secondary, additional or incidental findings); duties towards genetic relatives as well as the patient and duties on the part of researchers and professionals who do not have direct contact with patients. When considering these issues, the courts will take account of European and international comparisons, developing guidance and relevant ethical, social and policy factors. The UK courts will also be strongly influenced by precedent set in case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]