this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
638 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
75467 readers
1974 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
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.