this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
640 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
75499 readers
2709 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
FYI a dokter/psychiatrist is just as banned from exposing a confessed murder or rapist,
What they do instead is highly encourage you to turn yourself in.
The reason professional secrecy is so important is because the moment you leave the tiniest gap, no one will trust the profession anymore when processing the guilt of their own actions. Potentially making the problem worse. These people are not well in their head and require treatment, the bar for treatment must be as low and safe as can be.
I believe Dokters do have a rule when someone has full intention to do harm to a person in the near future they have to call law enforcement but i don’t think they need to provide information about the perpetrator if they aren’t the person in danger.
This may be subject to specific local laws but i always assumed it was modeled after how the church did it, pastors used to act as primitive psychologists.
Doctor patient confidentiality does not override the public interest.
Have we resorted to stating overt lies now? The most basic internet search will provide you with reliable sources that show this absurd statement is untrue.
No, i just know how to read.
From your source:
“disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm.”
Admitting something happened in the past is not a risk something will happen in the future. I mentioned how they have an exception for when people are in danger in the near future in my comment.
Its not uncommon for patients to confess to something in the past that was covered up and is since no longer happening.
Also note how i said local laws may be different, this is a uk source. The professionals i asked this question where not from the UK.
To give you as much straightforward an example.
If a patient admits to having harmed many kids while they have or work with kids, thats is a reason to break secrecy.
But if they said they raped and murdered a kid 30 years ago. That alone is not enough to break secrecy, there is no automatic assumption of repeat offending.
That is not the full paragraph. It reads:
"If it is not practicable or appropriate to seek consent, and in exceptional cases where a patient has refused consent, disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. The benefits to an individual or to society of the disclosure must outweigh both the patient’s and the public interest in keeping the information confidential."
Let's not forget that you had previously stated:
From this UK source, doctors are explicitly exempt from violating doctor-patient confidentiality in the aforementioned case. This directly contradicts your statement.
I'm eager to read your referenced citations from the individuals you've interviewed in other regions where doctors would be banned in such cases.
The fuller quote does not add more nuance here. I am not sure how you are deriving at your interpretation. Can you give an example of an “afformented case” that validates this exception?
It is not in the public interest to break doctor patient confidentiality about events that happend in the past when It is vastly better if the patient understands their wrongdoing and goed to law enforcement themselves. There is usually plenty of time to convince them if its clear there is no actual risk to a living person in the now.
There is no interview, there is a question i was curious about years ago while i had access to psychiatric professionals so inquired them about what the law said about it.
I've no interest in debating your opinion, forgive me for not entertaining it. Perhaps you've not recalled your past interactions accurately, and my only goal here is to correct the misinformation written in this thread.
If you're instead looking for some sources, I've performed a rudimentary search on interpreting paragraph 64:
Fair
"The aforementioned case" just means "the case that was mentioned previously."
Yes, it is 100% in the public interest to break confidentiality to report instances of egregious bodily harm to other human beings. The confessional seal should not be more important than justice for victims of crimes. This is why many countries have mandatory reporting requirements.
It is not for the priest to decide whether someone is at risk of reoffending. We should not trust bad people to police themselves. And if the situation is someone confessing to hurting another person, they have already breached the trust placed in them by society. If you just ask them to turn themselves in, they will often breach that trust again.
We (i) don’t actually know the rules for priests, just that its the origins for how it works for medical personnel.
This 100% feels very dangerous, psychiatrists provide a huge service to the public interests, you are advocating to undermine it with no nuance to individual cases.
Take for example. Someone with guilt and is contemplating to go to authorities themselves. The source material poop provided even starts with specifying refusal to consent as a possible requirement.
Good thing the job of psychiatrists has a high bar of required study and expertise.
Priest sadly not as much.