Barnhorst Amy, Wintemute Garen, Betz Marian E
An assistant clinical professor of psychiatry and an emergency and inpatient psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis.
An emergency medicine physician at the University of California at Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California, where he is the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program and the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center.
AMA J Ethics. 2018 Jan 1;20(1):29-35. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.1.ecas1-1801.
Mandatory reporting of persons believed to be at imminent risk for committing violence or attempting suicide can pose an ethical dilemma for physicians, who might find themselves struggling to balance various conflicting interests. Legal statutes dictate general scenarios that require mandatory reporting to supersede confidentiality requirements, but physicians must use clinical judgment to determine whether and when a particular case meets the requirement. In situations in which it is not clear whether reporting is legally required, the situation should be analyzed for its benefit to the patient and to public safety. Access to firearms can complicate these situations, as firearms are a well-established risk factor for violence and suicide yet also a sensitive topic about which physicians and patients might have strong personal beliefs.
强制报告那些被认为有实施暴力或企图自杀的紧迫风险的人,可能会给医生带来伦理困境,他们可能会发现自己在努力平衡各种相互冲突的利益。法律规定了一些一般情况,要求强制报告以取代保密要求,但医生必须运用临床判断力来确定特定案例是否以及何时符合该要求。在不清楚是否有法律要求报告的情况下,应分析该情况对患者和公共安全的益处。获得枪支会使这些情况变得复杂,因为枪支是暴力和自杀的既定风险因素,但也是一个敏感话题,医生和患者可能对此有强烈的个人信念。