Today in the workplace confidentiality is not expected but a breach of duty if not upheld (that is in my place of work) we treat everyone as though they may carry AIDS, to ensure the privacy of those that actually have it, the list is endless, and the only time this may be breached is if someone may be considered a danger to themselves or others, though this is also handled professionally and discreetly as possible
|3 years ago. Rating: 4|
Maintaining confidentiality means being trustworthy. If someone has told you something which you are not to repeat, if and when you repeat it, you are going to damage the relationship. THAT is the answer to your question.
Another potential tension is that if the "secret" NEEDS to be reported, YOU will be stressed if you keep it to yourself knowing you shouldn't. THAT is ANOTHER answer to your question.
Summary: You are stressed out keeping the secret or you hurt, possibly irrevocably, the friendship with the one who trusted you to keep quiet.
If the information you have NEEDS to be reported, you are under an obligation to do so. You could do so anonymously, or you could request that the "authority" you report to keeps your name confidential. That may or may not be possible. Your name could come up; why couldn't those people keep a secret and not say you were the source???
Do you see the problem starting? IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO BREAK THE CONFIDENTIALITY FOR THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING, tell the person who confided in you that you are compelled to say something. Perhaps the two of you can figure out a way to do this with the least amount of repercussions. DON'T GO BEHIND YOUR CONFIDER'S BACK .
|3 years ago. Rating: 3|
This one goes back along way, and in Christian societies relates to the absolute confidentiality of the Confessional. The rule has always been that no matter how heinous a crime the man or woman confessed to having committed, and (even more serious) no matter how likely that person was (in the Confessor's judgement) to repeat the offence, he must in no circumstances alert either the secular authorities or the potential victims. And this applied whether he had granted Absolution or not.
This rule is probably not the most morally disreputable rule of the entire Catholic Church, but it must rank high. For obvious reasons, examples of its operation are thin on the ground, but there are a couple of examples from England. The first concerns a certain Fr Garnett, who gained an awful lot of information about the Gunpowder Plot, from various conspirators, under seal of Confessional. It is alleged that he did his utmost to dissuade them, but to no avail. Having failed in this, he did not make his knowledge known to the secular authorities.
Sometime after they were caught and executed, he too was caught, tried, and found guilty of 'misprision of treason', which is to say, he had not himself engaged in a treasonous conspiracy, but he had gone along with it rather than betraying it. For this he was hanged ,and serve him right.
More recently, a disgusting man called Hanratty held up at gunpoint a courting couple parked in a secluded spot. He required them both to come out of their car, whereupon he shot the man dead, and raped the woman. Having done so, he shot her as well, though not, as it happens, dead - only crippled for life.
He was eventually apprehended, and sentenced to death entirely on circumstantial evidence (including, most damningly, a patently false alibi), the eye-witness account of the deeply traumatised woman being unreliable. However, he was a Catholic, and once he knew he was to die, he made his last confession to his priest - in which he did not include any confession to the murder, attempted murder and rape. Most unusually, he also required that the priest should break the usual rules of the Confessional, and broadcast to anyone prepared to listen that he had NOT confessed to and been absolved of those sins.
Well-a-day! That must prove his innocence, must it not? A certain journalist, called Ludovic Kennedy, banged on about that for over 30 years, as did a Monsignor Hume, who ought to have known better. But time passes, and brings with it progress (sometimes). DNA testing came in, and Lo and Behold! Hanratty's was found on the woman's knickers, which had been retained. Hume was dead by then, but Kennedy maintained that it must have been an instance of 'contamination' - samples had been mixed up, you see!
Pull the other one!
There are several morals to this story, of which the most obvious (applying to Kennedy), is, 'Don't fall in love with your own propaganda.'
The next most obvious (applying to Hume), is, 'Don't allow your own moral standards to impose themselves on your perception of other people's.
The third most obvious (applying to Hanratty) is, 'If you want a woman, look for one who is available.'
But the most important one from the viewpoint of your question is, 'Never make a promise you will not be entirely happy to keep.'
|3 years ago. Rating: 3|
To me the problem with this issue is that often times someone is more hurt because something is not shared with another agency etc. Confidentiality is a wide spread problem. That's another reasons we've seen whole companies fall. Something was kept confidential and when it's found out all h breaks loose. I don't know how many times I have heard people say, "this kid was failed by the system." "We didn't know this, We didn't know that. We should have done this." Now you're getting into one of my pet peeves.
|3 years ago. Rating: 2|