Legal and Ethical Analysis of a Nursing Case Study for Ethics

Question: Discuss about theLegal and Ethical Analysis of a Nursing Case Study for Ethics. Answer: Often the terms privacy and confidentiality are used interchangeably in daily life. However both the words have a different meaning with reference to the legal standpoint. According to Ryan, Callaghan and Large (2014) confidentiality means any private or personal information which has been shared with a physician, therapist, attorney or any other person which commonly cannot be disclosed to any third party except when express consent has been provided by the client. On the contrary privacy refers to the duty of not intruding in the personal information or matters of another person (Ahpra.gov.au 2017). The duty of maintaining confidentiality is a common law duty, however the right of privacy has its roots in the common law and is a legal duty. When it is stated that information is confidential there is an expectation that such information would not be shared unless expressed consent is provided. Privacy may arise out of using a restaurant wash room or any activity which is private. For instance the concept of confidentiality would arise out of a situation where the client had provided me with the information that he has a certain disease. Thus I am not supposed to disclose such fact to any other person without the authorization of the client. The concept of privacy would come into the picture in relation to a medical examination of the client. The legislation pertaining to privacy in Australia is known as the Privacy Act 1988. The Act is the regulator of the way in which personal information in relation to individuals is handled. Personal information is described as any information or opinion with respect to individual who can be identified or any individual who can reasonably be identified. There are 13 privacy principles included in the Privacy Act which are known as Australian Privacy Principles. The actor Lays down obligation and rights in relation to holding, accessing, using, handling and correcting personal information. In the case of Medical Board of Australia v William Fitzgerald the doctor was suspended for two and a half years as he was found to engage in a medical misconduct pertaining to privacy. The findings of the AHPRA were justified as the provisions of the Privacy Act had been violated. In the case of Nursing Midwifery Board of Australia v Claire Louise Crane conditions had been imposed on the registratio n of the nurse as she was found guilty of indulging in professional misconduct related to privacy. In this case also the findings of AHPRA were justified as it complied with the Privacy Act (Ahpra.gov.au 2017). Any person has a right to make a notification in a voluntary manner. However under National Law only health practitioners who are registered along with education providers and employers are mandatorily required to report notifiable conduct by making a mandatory reporting. It is the ethical and professional duty of all Healthcare practitioners to promote and protect public health and safe Health Care. It is mandatory required by such professionals to report on any conduct which can have an effect on the practice of a health practitioner. These conduct include practicing while being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, indulging in sexual harassment while practicing professional Healthcare, subjecting public to a substantial risk with respect to a health issue and exposing the public to a significant risk by departing from accepted professional conduct. There has to be a reasonable belief in the person making the notification that the other people have been involved in an act which constitutes notifiable conduct and they have reasonable grounds for such belief. There are certain exceptions which arise out of the situation in which the reasonable belief is created such as medico legal context. Education providers have to mandatorily report with respect to a health issue faced by a student which my place the public under significant risk during the course of clinical training (Ahpra.gov.au 2017). In case I knew that the RNs looked up for the colleagues information on the EPAS according to the facts of the scenario it would be my duty to make a mandatory notification in accordance to the rules discussed above. This is because the actions of the RNs would result in the infringement of privacy. It is the right of all individuals to maintain their privacy according to the provisions of the Privacy Act. The information which would have been provided by the nurse suspected to be hospitalized due to torture are kept confidential in the EPAS. Therefore if such information is taken without the consent of the nurse it would result in professional misconduct by the RNs even when they do not have any malicious intentions and are only looking for information because they are concerned. Where there is reasonable belief of a professional misconduct it is my duty to report search notifiable conduct under the provisions of mandatory notification. References Ahpra.gov.au. (2017). Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency - Court and Tribunal Decisions. [online] Available at: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/publications/tribunal-decisions.aspx [Accessed 26 Oct. 2017]. Ahpra.gov.au. (2017). Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency - Mandatory reporting. [online] Available at: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Notifications/Make-a-complaint/Mandatory-notifications.aspx [Accessed 26 Oct. 2017]. Ahpra.gov.au. (2017). Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency - Privacy. [online] Available at: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/About-AHPRA/Privacy.aspx [Accessed 26 Oct. 2017]. Ryan, C., Callaghan, S. and Large, M., 2014. Communication, confidentiality and consent in mental health care.