Patient confidentiality, the duty to protect, and psychotherapeutic care
Perspectives from the philosophy of ubuntu
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 21702393 |
|---|---|
| Autores | G W Bowersock (autor correspondente), Cornelius Ewuoso (0000-0001-7219-5554) |
| Ano | 2021 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Fascículo | 1-2 |
| Páginas | 41-59 |
| Data de publicação | 2021-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Metamedicine (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0166-2031 • E-ISSN: 1573-1200 |
| Editora | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-021-09545-0 |
| OpenAlex | W34523034 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 7 |
| Referências citadas | 27 |
This paper demonstrates how ubuntu relational philosophy may be used to ground beneficial coercive care without necessarily violating a patient's dignity. Specifically, it argues that ubuntu philosophy is a useful theory for developing necessary conditions for determining a patient's potential dangerousness; setting reasonable limits to the duty to protect; balancing the long-term good of providing unimpeded therapy for patients who need it with the short-term good of protecting at-risk parties; and advancing a framework for future case law and appropriate regulations in the care of psychotherapy patients. Issues regarding the decision to breach medical confidentiality in psychotherapeutic care are ultimately reserved for the courts. Professional assessment might be an important first step in this process, and court rulings govern most aspects of this assessment. However, current case law, especially in the United States, places an unreasonable expectation on psychotherapists to protect all at-risk parties or foresee that a patient intends to follow through on said threats. It has largely failed to guarantee psychotherapy patients unlimited access to care, while potentially inhibiting future honest communication between patients and health professionals and endangering the safety of others. Of these decisions, the two most prominent are the 1976 Tarasoff decision and the 2016 Volk decision. This paper argues for the possibility of grounding good laws in ubuntu African philosophy in a way that protects others from harm and ensures unimpeded access to care without necessarily breaching medical confidentiality
Ancient history · Art · Byzantine architecture · Diplomacy · Humanities · Political science · Politics · Archaeology and Historical Studies · Byzantine Studies and History · Classics · Global Maritime and Colonial Histories · History · Law
The Location of the Candace Episode in the Alexander Romance and the Chronicle of John Malalas
Patrystyka w czasopismach 2011 i 2012
Religious statecraft
"Посли до інших народів"
Vulnerability, Moral responsibility, and Moral Obligations
Cross-cultural bioethics
Ubuntu Philosophy and Mandatory Measles Vaccinations for Children
Rethinking Risk Assessment
Core aspects of ubuntu
No Future Without Forgiveness
Creating Capabilities
Beneficial Coercion in Psychiatric Care
Does Volk v DeMeerleer Conflict with the AMA Code of Medical Ethics on Breaching Patient Confidentiality to Protect Third Parties
Human Dignity, Capital Punishment, and an African Moral Theory
Toward an African Moral Theory
What Can the Capabilities Approach Learn from an Ubuntu Ethic? A Relational Approach to Development Theory
What is Ubuntu ,? Different Interpretations among South Africans of African Descent
Protecting victims of violent patients while protecting confidentiality
| Obras citantes distintas | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,5 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2012 - 2024 (13) |
| Velocidade de citação | recent |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 3 |