Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Electronic Health Records (EHR's) data masking, or controlled access, [1] is the process of concealing patient health data from certain healthcare providers. Patients have the right to request the masking of their personal information, making it inaccessible to any physician, or a particular physician, unless a specific reason is provided. [2]
Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications between a patient and their doctor from being used against the patient in court. It is a part of the rules of evidence in many common law jurisdictions. Almost every jurisdiction that recognizes physician–patient privilege not to ...
Confidentiality is commonly applied to conversations between doctors and patients. Legal protections prevent physicians from revealing certain discussions with patients, even under oath in court. [6] This physician-patient privilege only applies to secrets shared between physician and patient during the course of providing medical care. [6] [7]
Doctor-patient confidentiality makes for better medical practice, but when the patient is the president, do doctors have an obligation to the public as well?
However, there is a call for smaller emphasis on sharing and confidentiality in order to rid patients from their fears of information breaching. [21] There is a common belief that the confidentiality of one's information also only protects the doctors and not the patients, therefore there is a negative stigma towards revealing too much ...
Right to confidentiality, human dignity and privacy: Doctors should observe strict confidentiality of a patient's condition, with the only exception of potential threats to public health. In case of a physical inspection by a male doctor on a female patient, the latter has the right to have a female person present throughout the procedure.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
In the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, the therapist's duty to warn is implicitly contained within the guidelines for disclosure of confidential information without the consent of the client: "Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only ...