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.

Many hospitals are going through rough times as a result of a faulty economy, and skyrocketing medical liability insurance costs. Some hospitals have been forced to close as a result of economic woes in recent years; therefore, the need for clear medical practice guidelines is greater than ever before. 

If all hospitals set clear medical practice guidelines and management practice techniques, the cost of medical liability insurance would go down enough to lower the total cost of healthcare. The trickle down effect is a proven reality in the hospital industry, given that there is a strong correlation between the cost of consumer health-care insurance, and medical liability insurance for hospitals. 

The American Hospital Association seeks to promote accountability and transparency by using a management practice that holds doctors more accountable if they jeopardize the welfare of a patient. One such hospital management practice designed to benefit the patients is the fact that healthcare providers should be given incentive to adhere to evidence-based care, and to focus on safety and quality. 

Risky and innovative medical procedures that lack scientific evidence to back their practice can jeopardize the health of a patient, and violate practice guidelines. Such care should only be provided only if the patient willfully assents to the procedure. Doctors who suggest radical treatments are taking risks contrary to the aims of many practice guidelines and management practice preferences.  

Another important management practice that members of the American Hospital Association are implementing, is the quest to find sources of more compensation for medical professionals. It is a proven fact that people are less likely to perform their job well if they feel that they are not being paid well. Reasonable compensation for patients would come as a result of better doctor compensation. What is meant by reasonable patient compensation is the fact that doctors are better able to make patients “whole” after sustaining illness or injury.

 In the event of a malpractice suit, reasonable compensation would also help to remedy the non-economic and economic costs of malpractice injury.  Getting medicine right the first time is the priority of most hospitals. However, if a malpractice suit is brought to court, it would serve the entire community better if the claims process was not so adversarial. As a management practice, hospitals are hiring stronger legal teams to protect against malpractice suits.  

Hospital practice guidelines focus on preventing malpractice suits, while management practices focus on mitigating existing malpractice suits. These strategies have been adopted by many hospitals in order to avoid closure as a result of a faulty economy, and the many years it takes to recover from a serious malpractice suit or a series of frivolous malpractice suits. The idea is to make it harder for dissatisfied patients to sue doctors that do their best to provide adequate health care at a reasonable .

The
outcome of medical treatment is not always favorable. Doctors do their best to
treat patients and sometimes, the outcome is less than desirable for both
parties. Doctors must move onto the next patient because their job is to care
for the sick. However, the doctor’s alleged error stays with the patient
forever. Medical malpractice laws provide that those alleging medical
negligence prove several elements of medical malpractice to win a case. 

These
several factors to prove are designed to help courts differentiate a legitimate
suit from a frivolous suit. It is a reality that there are medical procedures
that yield unfavorable results without any evidence of medical negligence in
the case; these cases are not considered malpractice. Every medical procedure
has a possibility of something going wrong. Doctors are obligated to discuss
risk factors of any medical procedures. 

Doctors are required to keep with professional standards
of practice with their patients. This is because they assume the role of
provider of health care. Therefore, it is their responsibility to administer
medical treatment to the best of their ability. The standard to which a doctor
is held depends on several factors. Doctors cannot be held liable for medical
malpractice if the circumstances could not give the doctor the appropriate
resources to perform a medical procedure. For example, a doctor who could not
provide his or her patient’s heart transplant due to the rarity of O negative
organ donors would not be guilty of medical negligence. 

The patient’s inability
to be healed is a matter of providence and not negligence. However, if the doctor
transplanted the wrong heart which resulted in the death of a patient, then the
doctor would be guilty of medical negligence. Patients are entitled to be
informed of the possible consequences of any medical procedure. If the doctor
warned that the chances of recovery for using a slightly different blood type
heart were less than appealing and the patient still insisted, the doctor is
most likely not guilty of medical negligence. This example is complex because
the doctor did not go in line with the hospital’s standard of care; but had the
intent of healing the patient by playing low odds with the patients’ consent.
The extent of the medical negligence, here, is arguable.  

In addition to substandard care and negligence, the
patient must prove that the care that was received did, in fact, harm or injure
the patient. This seems like an obvious prospect; however, it is almost certain
that the patient was not in the best of health before receiving medical care.
Therefore, the exact origin of the current medical condition can sometimes be
more ambiguous. It is also important for the court to consider whether the
disease or injury would have happened without the doctor’s alleged medical
negligence.  

Medical malpractice cases are not as clear-cut as being
in a worse condition than before receiving care from the doctor. It is an
unfortunate fact that many patients do not recover from treatment. Determining
the extent to which the unfortunate outcome is a result of medical malpractice
is an arguable matter of fact that sometimes must be settled in court.