Confidentiality of psychiatric and psychological communications: The public interest exception

Abstract

This article focuses on the developing law and ethical justifications for the disclosure of confidential information in the public interest The first part deals with the ethical justifications for “absolute” as opposed to “relative” confidentiality whilst the second part provides an overview of common law cases in England, New Zealand and Canada. In particular, the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Smith v Jones (1999) 132 CCC (3d) 225 is analysed. It is argued that the majority of health professionals and ethicists appear to view confidentiality as being relative rather than absolute. However, the test for disclosure set out in Smith v Jones is problematic and there is still a way to go before this complex area of law and health professional practice can be clarified.