Clinicians imagine a patient's view: Rating disclosures of confidential information.

Consent to disclosure of confidential information is a cornerstone of the clinician-patient relationship; however, changes in the legal, regulatory, and technological landscape affecting patient confidentiality have brought increasing conflict between ethics-based commitments and the realities of practice. In this pilot study, 119 mental-health clinicians completed a questionnaire that measured levels of disapproval of disclosures of confidential information to various third parties. Clinicians were asked to respond as though they were patients whose information was to be disclosed. Clinicians, taking a patient's perspective, most disapproved of disclosures to anyone who wanted the information and to entities that marketed pharmaceutical, medical, or other products. They were progressively less uncomfortable with disclosures to family members, for educational use without consent but with de-identification, to insurance companies, to pharmacists, to journals, for educational purposes in training other clinicians, and for research. They were least disapproving of disclosures to other clinicians. Based on this initial study of clinicians taking a patient's perspective, clinicians will do well to inform patients about disclosure practices at least as fully as they themselves would want to be informed.

"The whole truth" versus "the admissible truth": an ethics dilemma for expert witnesses.

The expert witness testifies under oath to tell "the whole truth," yet certain aspects of the legal system itself make this ideal difficult or impossible. The authors present both a philosophical and a practical discussion of the challenges for the expert in attaining this goal. After review of oaths in general and truth-telling in particular, real-life examples are provided to examine the vicissitudes of the whole truth in court. Recommendations are provided for experts, to preserve the truth in the adversary system.