Doctors, like physicians that occurs with other professionals (lawyers or the professionals of banking for example) which, by reason of the activities carried out, acquire a direct contact with data and sensitive matters in relation to life and privacy of others (their clients); they are bound by a duty of secrecy in relation to these aspects. In the specific case of the medical professionals is the so-called Hippocratic oath, that links them whatever the place where carry out their work, containing explicitly the duty of secrecy. In effect, physicians, surgeons, nurses, specialists are inescapably bound by a principle of confidentiality with patients try to whom, and which is founded on the right to privacy, advocated in the totality of texts on human rights and civil liberties in force in the world. A related site: Mark Hyman, MD mentions similar findings. What is the main reason for this duty of secrecy? Its justification is perfectly rational. All have perfect right to save for us same aspects that affect us more directly and intimately, and including those relating to our own health conditions. Thus, the fact that professionals responsible for ensuring it will be bound by a duty of these features allows patients trust them openly aspects which, otherwise, might be tempted to hide, with what their own well-being could be seriously affected, reaching for example to not detect diseases or not perform necessary surgical interventions.
In short, this duty of secrecy is one of the pillars on which medicine from more than two thousand years, and its fracture would have serious repercussions. The failure by the facultative doctors from their duty of secrecy question which arises after such argumentation consists in what would happen if a professional in medicine, ignoring his duty, reveal sensitive data about the conditions of health of a patient without his consent in any way? In such cases it might talk without doubt whatsoever by this professional Commission of an alleged medical negligence, for having infringed the same clearly a so inherent duty to his profession as it is secret doctor, injuring thus their patient’s rights. The same, without any doubt, should be subject to compensation, which would require an assessment of the damage could have caused in this patient by the same and the degree in which his life may have been affected by the same moral (imagine, for example, had publicly revealed that the patient suffers from AIDS or that he suffers from some sort of addiction). The only exception that could accept this duty could take place for reasons of public health, for example if there is the danger that could spread some kind of illness, in which case the optional should alert the authorities about it.