ABSTRACT
As we have seen, the doctrine of utilitarianism assesses the ethics of a course of action on the basis that it will result in the best consequences overall. In the context of confi dentiality, therefore, the obligation is justifi ed by the utility of doctors keeping medical information secret. The argument is that if there were no assurance of secrecy, then patients would be reluctant to seek medical advice and treatment, or would be less than frank when doing so. This would, it is argued, have an adverse effect on the health of society. The argument is described by Raanan Gillon:
Gillon, R, Philosophical Medical Ethics 1
Why should doctors from the time of Hippocrates to the present have promised to keep their patients’ secrets? If confi dentiality is not a moral good in itself what moral good does it serve? The commonest justifi cation for the duty of medical confi dentiality is undoubtedly consequentialist: people’s better health, welfare, the general good, and overall happiness are more likely to be attained if doctors are fully informed by their patients, and this is more likely if doctors undertake not to disclose their patients’ secrets. Conversely, if patients did not believe that doctors would keep their secrets then either they would not divulge embarrassing but potentially medically important information, thus reducing their chances of getting the best medical care, or they would disclose such information and feel anxious and unhappy at the prospect of their secrets being made known.
