Psychiatrists and their patients have a special relationship. It is a relationship based on trust. Psychiatrists are required to keep all information relating to medical records confidential and away from public hands. Any breach of this promise is considered medical malpractice. Newly licensed psychiatrists are required to recite the Hippocratic oath. The oath does not carry legal weight.

However, all patient-psychiatrist privilege laws stem from the line in the Oath, "Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning all such should be kept secret."  

The psychiatrist-patient confidentiality is legally rooted in the Hippocratic Oath. Patient-psychiatrist confidentiality stems from the fact that when a prospective patient seeks the advice or care from a psychiatric physician, the patient might not speak freely if such information were to be public. The solemnity of the confidentiality between psychiatrists and patients is a matter of ensuring the best possible care for patients. Patients must communicate truthfully and openly what is wrong for a doctor to be able to administer optimal care.  

It is for this reason that when tacit agreements of confidentiality between psychiatrists and patients are breached, the patient can sue for medical malpractice. The publicity of medical records, and the confidentiality of psychiatric problems becoming jeopardized, is not up to the physician, but the patient. Such a breach of trust would prevent patients from freely speaking with their psychiatrist or other doctor, leaving a potentially serious condition untreated. Breaching the psychiatrist-patient confidentiality agreement is in neither the professional's, nor the patient's interest. Breaches pose a threat to the overall quality of care that patients receive. By virtue of this fact, malpractice suits apply to this breach.  Contact a malpractice lawyer to consult your case.

Doctors do not only treat patients by administering medicine or performing surgery. In fact, the way a psychiatrist treats his or her patient is as crucial as the types of psychoactive drugs they can administer. Divulging sensitive medical information to humiliate the patient, and will prevent that patient and future patients from freely expressing what ails him or her. Trust is part of the medical practice, in fact, it is the way in which all medical care is administered.

Divulging medical secrets is an egregious form of malpractice, which raises questions of the trustworthiness of a doctor's treatment. It shows a lack of respect for the profession and the humanity of the patient. Therefore, such malpractice is worthy of reputation damaging lawsuits and monetary compensation for the offended patient.

To physicians, the standard of care is the diagnostic and treatment process that a doctor should practice for a given illness, patient, and set of circumstances. This is not entirely different from the legal definition of the phrase, "standard of care." In fact, lawyers use this phrase to mean the level of care at which the average care provider gives the patient in a given area of medicine. These two definitions are very similar. The medical definition of the standard of care is more specific and scientific, whereas, the legal definition of the phrase is more oriented towards tradition and medical precedent. 

Many medical malpractice laws are based on medical professional guidelines for the standard of care for common illnesses and certain types of patients. It would not be possible to codify all of the possible variants in determining if the proper standard of care has been administered to the patient. It is for this reason that malpractice lawyers and judges rely on medical associations, doctor's guilds, and other professional community guidelines to litigate disputes over existing malpractice laws.

Many states have adopted malpractice laws that mirror the American Heart Association's guidelines for malpractice suits involving heart patients. Guidelines AHA uses are meant to uphold the standard of care in medical malpractice laws. This is because most lawmakers are not physicians, and are not qualified to set standards of care. Therefore, the standard of care basis of malpractice laws is provided by the medical community itself; namely guidelines AHA has provided.   

The American Hospital Association (AHA) provides more general guidelines for the standard of care in accordance with state and federal malpractice laws. Guidelines AHA provides ensure a standard of care as well as rights to privacy throughout most American hospitals that are part of the AHA. Guidelines AHA sets are critical in malpractice suits because a hospital that cannot live up to its own standards and obligations to patients, should be punished for breach of ethics.

In absence of malpractice laws, the guidelines AHA sets, or other medical associations, are used in malpractice suits as evidence. Businesses, including hospitals, must live up to their claims to avoid deceiving their clients. The standard of care must be the same for all patients. Doctors and hospitals are, for the most part, compliant with the fulfillment of their obligation to the patient. If a doctor makes a negligent error with regard to standard of care, then malpractice laws determine that the patient has a clear civil case against the hospital or the doctor.

The American Heart Association's standard of care is ethically binding to most cardiologists and health care professionals treating a patient's heart or cardiovascular condition. AHA guidelines, as well as the general medical community, requires that indigent patients must be given the same standard of care that paying patients get. Physicians are required to treat patients without discrimination. By law, emergency room doctors may not deny a patient of care.

Indigent patients must receive medical care, and malpractice laws hold doctors accountable for the way they are treated. Contrary to myths, indigent patients do not frequently sue to get out of debt for their medical bills. Doctors are subject to the same medical liability rules.

Non-psychiatric patients are entitled to full privacy and confidentiality with respect to the patient-physician privilege. The relationship between a physician and his or her patients is based on trust, because it is the promise of confidence that keeps patients communicating with their health care professional. The solemnity of confidentiality between a patient and a physician is not only a matter of ethics. It is a matter of life and death, because breach of trust between physicians and patients will result in silence that would prevent doctors from doing their job to the best of their ability. People feel vulnerable when visiting the doctor because one’s health is a matter of a very personal nature.

The truth is that some ailments are more embarrassing than others. If the patient fears that the doctor will divulge a patient’s embarrassing illness to the public or his or her enemies, then the patient would be less likely to disclose that which ails them. Ultimately, the medical problem would be worse if this secrecy between the patient and the physician were to proceed indefinitely. Therefore, a confidential relationship between patients and physicians is a matter of medical practices, not only ethics.

Therefore, if it is ever discovered that a doctor illegally disclosed medical information to an unauthorized party, then the patient has a right to sue for medical malpractice. Medical malpractice does not always involve doctors that provide substandard care. Medical malpractice suits can be a matter of professional integrity as well. Non-psychiatric patients have the least amount of exceptions to the physician-patient privilege.

The importance of the physician-patient privilege was first recognized by the ancient Greek doctor Hippocrates. Hippocrates is remembered mostly as the father of Western medicine. His legacy lives in the Hippocratic Oath all newly licensed doctors must recite. The Hippocratic oath establishes the ethical foundation of the relationship between doctors and patient. It is the basis of all medical ethics. Legally, the ethical nature of the relationship is upheld by the virtue of the nature of the service that a doctor provides. Doctors are obligated to give equal care to every single patient, because the relationship is based on tacit contracts between the professional and his or her patient.

A physician is held to this standard for a reason. Confidentiality is the very basis of a patient’s consent to receive care. The reception of medical care is based on trust. Children below the age of reason are the only exemption to the confidentiality between a physician and a patient. Concerned parents that wish to know about their teenagers sexual activity, drug, alcohol, or tobacco use cannot ask the doctor. The physician may not divulge such information because such issues must be freely discussed between the doctor and the patient.

Parents must confront this issue themselves. It is not the doctor’s place to tell the parent about this matter. The doctor is only obligated to inform the patient of the inherent health risks associated with those behaviors. That is the only obligation a prudent physician has when a minor discloses such activity. Doctors discuss taboo topics in confidence to serve patients better. The only time that medical information may be released is with the consent of the patient.

The disclosure must be temporary and specific. It would not be in a patient’s interest to let a doctor post a patient’s medical history on the Internet for all to see. Psychiatric patients have the least rights because some patients are cognitively incapable of understanding the concept of secrecy. If the disclosure of psychiatric patient history is in dispute, it must be protected by the legal guardian of the mentally ill patient.