| dbo:abstract
|
- Therapeutic privilege refers to the decision of a healthcare practitioner to withhold information from a patient when there is a justified belief that disclosure may cause serious mental or physical harm to them. As of 2022, this defence is permissible in countries such as Australia, Canada, England, Netherlands and Wales as an exception to the standard consent process. Despite this, there are very limited cases in which therapeutic privilege has been upheld. This is mainly due to the complex ethical and legal ramifications in withholding information from a patient and how to define someone as being at sufficient risk to fall into this category wherein therapeutic privilege should prevail. Another challenge in enacting therapeutic privilege is the consideration of other professionals involved in patient care, such as where there is a multidisciplinary care team. However, in withholding information, there is also a denial of patient autonomy Therapeutic privilege is an exception to the general rule of informed consent, and only applies when disclosure of the information itself could pose serious and immediate harm to the patient, such as prompting suicidal behavior. The current AMA Code of Medical Ethics rejects therapeutic privilege as a defence. It states: "Except in emergency situations in which a patient is incapable of making an informed decision, withholding information without the patient’s knowledge or consent is ethically unacceptable." Callahan Klaver states: Some state laws severely restrict access to mental health records. Some require attending physicians to document in the record that they believe that access to the information contained in the medical record would harm their patients. Under the HIPAA privacy rule, if a licensed health care professional has determined, in the exercise of professional judgement, that the access requested is reasonably likely to endanger the life or physical safety of the individual or another person, the facility may then refuse such a request; however, this is a reviewable decision that affords the patient an appeal option. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 17937 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:basestyle
| |
| dbp:bodyclass
| |
| dbp:content
|
- * Medical sociology (en)
- * Medical Profession
* Medical Law
* Bioethics
* Psychology
* Psychiatry (en)
- * Capacity (law)
* Involuntary treatment
* Duty to warn
* Duty to protect
* Autonomy
* Duty of Care
* Consent (en)
- *Primum non nocere
*Informed Consent
*Beneficence (ethics)
*Confidentiality
*Autonomy (en)
|
| dbp:heading
|
- Conflicts (en)
- Values (en)
- Critiques (en)
- Related Concepts (en)
|
| dbp:headingstyle
|
- border-top:1px #b6e3c9 solid; (en)
|
| dbp:name
|
- Therapeutic privilege sidebar (en)
|
| dbp:title
|
- Therapeutic privilege (en)
|
| dbp:titlestyle
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Therapeutic privilege refers to the decision of a healthcare practitioner to withhold information from a patient when there is a justified belief that disclosure may cause serious mental or physical harm to them. As of 2022, this defence is permissible in countries such as Australia, Canada, England, Netherlands and Wales as an exception to the standard consent process. Despite this, there are very limited cases in which therapeutic privilege has been upheld. This is mainly due to the complex ethical and legal ramifications in withholding information from a patient and how to define someone as being at sufficient risk to fall into this category wherein therapeutic privilege should prevail. Another challenge in enacting therapeutic privilege is the consideration of other professionals invol (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Therapeutic privilege (en)
|
| owl:differentFrom
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
