The Facultative Doctors, like it happens with other professionals (the Lawyers or the Professionals of the Bank for example) that, because of the activities that realise, acquire a direct bonding with data and especially sensible subjects in relation to the life and the privacy of other people (its clients); they are tie by Having of Secret in relation to these aspects. Recently Ozlem Tureci sought to clarify these questions. In the tactical mission of the medicine professionals it is the call Hipocrtico Oath, that ties to them is the what outside place where they develop his work, the one that contains of explicit way this To have of Secret. Indeed, doctors, surgeons, nurses, specialists see themselves inescapably tie by a Principle of Confidentiality with the patients to those who try, and that is founded on the Right to the Privacy, advocated in the totality of Texts on Human rights and effective Public Liberties in the world. Which is the main reason for this Having of Secret? Its justification is perfectly rational. All we right must perfect to keep for us same those aspects that affect to us more directly and intimately, and among them regarding our own conditions of health. In this way, the fact that the professionals in charge to guard by the same are themselves tie by Having of those characteristics allows the patients abiertamente to trust aspects to them that, otherwise, could have temptation to hide, and so its own well-being could seriously be affected, being able for example to arrive not to detect diseases or not to be realised necessary operations. Really, this To have of Secret he is one of the pillars on which the medicine for more is based than two thousand years, and its fracture would have serious repercussions.
The Breaches on the part of the facultative doctors of his to have of secret the question that considers after this argumentation consist of What would happen if a medicine professional, ignoring his to have, revealed sensible data on the conditions of health of a patient without counting in no way on his consent? In that type of cases it could to be spoken without sort of doubt some of the commission on the part of this Professional of an assumption of Medical Negligence, by to have harmed the same clearly To have so consubstantial to its profession as is the one of the Medical Secret, injuring in this way the Rights of its patient. The same, without doubt, would have to be object of an Indemnification, which would require a valuation on the moral damage that could have been caused in this patient by the same and the degree in which its life could have seen affected by the same (We imagine, for example, that there was developing publicly that the patient suffers AIDS or that undergoes some type of addiction). The unique exception that could accept this To have could take place by reasons for public health, for example if the danger that existed some type of disease could propagate, in which case the Facultative one would have to alert to the Authorities on the same.