confidentiality-revisited

by zev 16 Replies latest jw friends

  • zev
    zev

    while doing a little surfing this morning, i stumbled onto this site...
    http://home.earthlink.net/~michaelhenry/
    and while the information presented has been covered here before...i wanted to bring it up again, for the new members, and to all of us really. even now, being "out" , i still wonder as i got to the doctors for various tests and proceedures, what if? monday, i had a test done in the lab, and they had to up date my profile at the hospital. for the first time, i answered, religous preference as...NONE!!!

    here is an article that will blow you away.

    *** w87 9/1 12-15 "A Time to Speak"-When? ***
    “A Time to Speak”—When?
    MARY works as a medical assistant at a hospital. One requirement she has to abide by in her work is confidentiality. She must keep documents and information pertaining to her work from going to unauthorized persons. Law codes in her state also regulate the disclosure of confidential information on patients.
    One day Mary faced a dilemma. In processing medical records, she came upon information indicating that a patient, a fellow Christian, had submitted to an abortion. Did she have a Scriptural responsibility to expose this information to elders in the congregation, even though it might lead to her losing her job, to her being sued, or to her employer’s having legal problems? Or would Proverbs 11:13 justify keeping the matter concealed? This reads: “The one walking about as a slanderer is uncovering confidential talk, but the one faithful in spirit is covering over a matter.”—Compare Proverbs 25:9, 10.
    Situations like this are faced by Jehovah’s Witnesses from time to time. Like Mary, they become acutely aware of what King Solomon observed: “For everything there is an appointed time, even a time for every affair under the heavens: . . . a time to keep quiet and a time to speak.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7) Was this the time for Mary to keep quiet, or was it the time to speak about what she had learned?
    Circumstances can vary greatly. Hence, it would be impossible to set forth a standard procedure to be followed in every case, as if everyone should handle matters the way Mary did. Indeed, each Christian, if ever faced with a situation of this nature, must be prepared to weigh all the factors involved and reach a decision that takes into consideration Bible principles as well as any legal implications and that will leave him or her with a clear conscience before Jehovah. (1 Timothy 1:5, 19) When sins are minor and due to human imperfection, the principle applies: “Love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8) But when there seems to be serious wrongdoing, should a loyal Christian out of love of God and his fellow Christian reveal what he knows so that the apparent sinner can receive help and the congregation’s purity be preserved?
    Applying Bible Principles
    What are some basic Bible principles that apply? First, anyone committing serious wrongdoing should not try to conceal it. “He that is covering over his transgressions will not succeed, but he that is confessing and leaving them will be shown mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13) Nothing escapes the notice of Jehovah. Hidden transgressions must eventually be accounted for. (Proverbs 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:24, 25) At times Jehovah brings concealed wrongdoing to the attention of a member of the congregation that this might be given proper attention.—Joshua 7:1-26.
    Another Bible guideline appears at Leviticus 5:1: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.” This “public cursing” was not profanity or blasphemy. Rather, it often occurred when someone who had been wronged demanded that any potential witnesses help him to get justice, while calling down curses—likely from Jehovah—on the one, perhaps not yet identified, who had wronged him. It was a form of putting others under oath. Any witnesses of the wrong would know who had suffered an injustice and would have a responsibility to come forward to establish guilt. Otherwise, they would have to ‘answer for their error’ before Jehovah.
    This command from the Highest Level of authority in the universe put the responsibility upon each Israelite to report to the judges any serious wrongdoing that he observed so that the matter might be handled. While Christians are not strictly under the Mosaic Law, its principles still apply in the Christian congregation. Hence, there may be times when a Christian is obligated to bring a matter to the attention of the elders. True, it is illegal in many countries to disclose to unauthorized ones what is found in private records. But if a Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah. There are times when a Christian “must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.
    While oaths or solemn promises should never be taken lightly, there may be times when promises required by men are in conflict with the requirement that we render exclusive devotion to our God. When someone commits a serious sin, he, in effect, comes under a ‘public curse’ from the One wronged, Jehovah God. (Deuteronomy 27:26; Proverbs 3:33) All who become part of the Christian congregation put themselves under “oath” to keep the congregation clean, both by what they do personally and by the way they help others to remain clean.
    Personal Responsibility
    These are some of the Bible principles Mary likely considered in making her personal decision. Wisdom dictated that she should not act quickly, without weighing matters very carefully. The Bible counsels: “Do not become a witness against your fellowman without grounds. Then you would have to be foolish with your lips.” (Proverbs 24:28) To establish a matter conclusively, the testimony of at least two eyewitnesses is needed. (Deuteronomy 19:15) If Mary had seen only a brief mention of abortion, she might have decided conscientiously that the evidence of any guilt was so inconclusive that she should not proceed further. There could have been a mistake in billing, or in some other way the records may not have properly reflected the situation.
    In this instance, however, Mary had some other significant information. For example, she knew that the sister had paid the bill, apparently acknowledging that she had received the service specified. Also, she knew personally that the sister was single, thus raising the possibility of fornication. Mary felt a desire lovingly to help one who may have erred and to protect the cleanness of Jehovah’s organization, remembering Proverbs 14:25: “A true witness is delivering souls, but a deceitful one launches forth mere lies.”
    Mary was somewhat apprehensive about the legal aspects but felt that in this situation Bible principles should carry more weight than the requirement that she protect the privacy of the medical records. Surely the sister would not want to become resentful and try to retaliate by making trouble for her, she reasoned. So when Mary analyzed all the facts available to her, she decided conscientiously that this was a time to “speak,” not to “keep quiet.”
    Now Mary faced an additional question: To whom should she speak, and how could she do so discreetly? She could go directly to the elders, but she decided to go first privately to the sister. This was a loving approach. Mary reasoned that this one under some suspicion might welcome the opportunity to clarify matters or, if guilty, confirm the suspicion. If the sister had already spoken to the elders about the matter, likely she would say so, and Mary would not need to pursue matters further. Mary reasoned that if the sister had submitted to an abortion and had not confessed to this serious transgression of God’s law, she would encourage her to do this. Then the elders could help her in accord with James 5:13-20. Happily, this is how matters worked out. Mary found that the sister had submitted to an abortion under much pressure and because of being spiritually weak. Shame and fear had moved her to conceal her sin, but she was glad to get help from the elders toward spiritual recovery.
    If Mary had reported first to the body of elders, they would have been faced with a similar decision. How would they handle confidential information coming into their possession? They would have had to make a decision based on what they felt Jehovah and his Word required of them as shepherds of the flock. If the report involved a baptized Christian who was actively associated with the congregation, they would have had to weigh the evidence as did Mary in determining if they should proceed further. If they decided that there was a strong possibility that a condition of “leaven” existed in the congregation, they might have chosen to assign a judicial committee to look into the matter. (Galatians 5:9, 10) If the one under suspicion had, in effect, resigned from being a member, not having attended any meetings for some time and not identifying herself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they might choose to let the matter rest until such time as she did begin to identify herself again as a Witness.
    Thinking Ahead
    Employers have a right to expect that their Christian employees will ‘exhibit good fidelity to the full,’ including observing rules on confidentiality. (Titus 2:9, 10) If an oath is taken, it should not be taken lightly. An oath makes a promise more solemn and binding. (Psalm 24:4) And where the law reinforces a requirement on confidentiality, the matter becomes still more serious. Hence, before a Christian takes an oath or puts himself under a confidentiality restriction, whether in connection with employment or otherwise, it would be wise to determine to the extent possible what problems this may produce because of any conflict with Bible requirements. How will one handle matters if a brother or a sister becomes a client? Usually such jobs as working with doctors, hospitals, courts, and lawyers are the type of employment in which a problem could develop. We cannot ignore Caesar’s law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah’s law is supreme.
    Anticipating the problem, some brothers who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so forth, have prepared guidelines in writing and have asked brothers who may consult them to read these over before revealing anything confidential. Thus an understanding is required in advance that if serious wrongdoing comes to light, the wrongdoer would be encouraged to go to the elders in his congregation about the matter. It would be understood that if he did not do so, the counselor would feel an obligation to go to the elders himself.
    There may be occasions when a faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based on his knowledge of God’s Word, to strain or even breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law. Courage and discretion would be needed. The objective would not be to spy on another’s freedom but to help erring ones and to keep the Christian congregation clean. Minor transgressions due to sin should be overlooked. Here, “love covers a multitude of sins,” and we should forgive “up to seventy-seven times.” (Matthew 18:21, 22) This is the “time to keep quiet.” But when there is an attempt to conceal major sins, this may be the “time to speak.”
    [Footnotes]
    Mary is a hypothetical person facing a situation that some Christians have faced. The way she handles the situation represents how some have applied Bible principles in similar circumstances.
    In their Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch state that a person would be guilty of error or sin if he “knew of another’s crime, whether he had seen it, or had come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore qualified to appear in court as a witness for the conviction of the criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses.”

    It is the right and loving course to encourage an erring Witness to speak with the elders, confident that they will handle the problem in a kind and understanding way.

    Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    The article sounds reasonable and balanced in its suggestion,

    It is the right and loving course to encourage an erring Witness to speak with the elders, confident that they will handle the problem in a kind and understanding way.

    How often do these suggestions turn into rules, or end up with one JW imposing their conscience on another one? Way too often, as anyone who's been in the organization for any length of time knows. The people, at heart, are looking for rules rather than for thoughtfully-applied principles. So the reasonable tone set at the end doesn't matter. What many JW's will see in here is, "the elders MUST know, at any cost".

    -J.R., member, UADNA-MN
    (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America - Minnesota division)

    This post was not evaluated by any mental health professionals.
    Any opinions expressed are those of a fuzzy, cuddly rodent.

  • Imbue
    Imbue

    Gopher said:

    The people, at heart, are looking for rules rather than for thoughtfully-applied principles.

    So true!I got a ranked by a 'bethlite elder's wife' (some title) for this same comment. "Were you raised in the truth" She meant to say "you don't know what your talking about." What I should have said was: "No,I'm not programed like you. I can think for my self thank you"

    I already decided that if a JW comes into detox then their sobriety and health must come first. Anonymity, trust and love are what the addict hasn't known in his life. Maybe he will find it in AA/NA.

    Crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • Shroom
    Shroom

    Since we're on the subject of breaching confidentiality in the medical field, I thought I'd bring this story back up. It's a great example of what little regard witnesses have for other people's privacy.

    http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20010623&Category=JWANDSOCIETY1&ArtNo=10623005&Ref=AR

  • Scully
    Scully

    Hi Zev

    I wrote a paper for my Ethics class while in Nursing School about this very subject. The trouble with WT policy is that while elders get information they want and DF people on the basis of confidential information, few JWs in the position of "informant" realize that their "loving organization" will not provide a single shred of support for them when they lose their job, face huge fines (in 1996, the amount was about $25,000 here in Ontario, Canada) or other penalties, including jail time. As a matter of fact, because a JW in the position of "informant" has committed a crime, they may end up being DFd if they get caught breaching patient confidentiality. Sucks to be them, huh?? You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

    Solution for JWs?? Don't do work of any kind in the medical profession. Period. Don't even clean doctors' offices.

    If I find my term paper (which received a grade of 98% by the way), I'll be happy to post it.

    Love, Scully
    UADNA-C (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America-Canada)

  • HoChiMin
    HoChiMin

    ZEV,

    I also answered "none" for the first time about religious affiliation at a hospital. WOW! that felt good. There happened to be a witness working as a lab tech, that was in my former book study. I was ready to pounce if any info got back to the Gestapo (elders), however it turns out she is also now out of the org. and much happier. Four more out for good: her, her husband, & two kids, wonders never cease.

    HCM

  • Haereticus
    Haereticus

    I had a serious accident about four years after my DF'n. While still recovering in hospital my JW mother visited me and told me that they had given me blood. She was the first one to tell me? She revealed that the source was a JW doctor who's name was familiar to me (but this man had nothing to do with my case), that my mother asked to check my file. The way my mother told this news was as this behavior of JW back scratching would be most natural way to go. I do not mind my mother knowing it, but she did not see anything wrong her asking and another JW prying out without authority nor the doctor.

    No wonder I do not trust any of them back slappers anymore and I am ashamed I did for a while.

  • Scully
    Scully

    Haereticus:

    I had a serious accident about four years after my DF'n. While still recovering in hospital my JW mother visited me and told me that they had given me blood. She was the first one to tell me? She revealed that the source was a JW doctor who's name was familiar to me (but this man had nothing to do with my case), that my mother asked to check my file. The way my mother told this news was as this behavior of JW back scratching would be most natural way to go. I do not mind my mother knowing it, but she did not see anything wrong her asking and another JW prying out without authority nor the doctor.

    What the JW doctor did was ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL. He had absolutely NO business looking at your chart with or without permission from you or the physician handling your case, and he should not have used his position to obtain confidential information from your chart which he then passed along to your mother (who, unless you specifically authorize, is not legally entitled to that information either). Had you sued him, he would have lost his job and his licence to practice. Because this does not fall under the definition of malpractice, his malpractice insurance would not have covered his legal expenses. As well, the breach of confidentiality would not be supported by the hospital. He would have been out on his butt SO FAST, and would be stuck for all legal costs, fines and judgements against him. The fact is that you were DF'd and no longer under the jurisdiction of the WTS in any way, shape or form. Even if you were a JW in good standing, the breach of confidentiality is completely unprofessional; however the fact that you no longer were a JW is even more compelling reason to keep them out of your medical records. It's none of their business, and never was in the first place.

    I don't know if there are any statute of limitation on this kind of thing where you live, but I seriously think JWs need to be put on notice that people will not tolerate this kind of meddling. The WTS will not support individual JWs or elders who break the laws of confidentiality, either financially or legally. The congregations will not provide legal or financial support either.

    The person who breached confidentiality will be hung out to dry
    .

    Once JWs realize this, they'll have second thoughts about divulging confidential professional information. Most JWs don't have an extra $25,000 laying around to pay the fines that will be levied against them, and most of them couldn't afford to hire a lawyer if they needed legal respresentation of this magnitude.

    It would be very interesting to see whether the trend would change or not, or whether there would be "new light" if people whose patient confidentiality was violated by JWs would start suing the informants for damages. I really think this issue is important.

    Love, Scully
    UADNA-C (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America-Canada)

  • zev
    zev

    i'll comment later on the great thoughts y'all have brought to the table here.

    i told gwen about an experience i had and i'd like to share it with you here.

    and elders wife transcribes for the local doctors/hospital. actually, it WAS local, but i'm not there so its "back there local". anyways...

    i had some tests done and a diagnosis was given by the lab, and it was transcribed by this elderette. she saw me at a gathering of brethern a few days later, and announced what was wrong with me. first of all i was shocked that she even knew. but more shocking, what if it had been something i could have been called on the carpet for? like having or treatments for drug or alchol abuse?

    i was kind pissed at this, but what could i do? at least it was just a minor "health" related diagnosis and nothing more. but you know, i just know she told hubby anyways. no such thing as confidential matters.

    oh, the elder is the presiding p.o. of where i used to "belong".

    Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
    U.A.D.N.A.--Rhode Island

  • Scully
    Scully

    zev:

    elders wife transcribes for the local doctors/hospital. actually, it WAS local, but i'm not there so its "back there local". anyways...

    i had some tests done and a diagnosis was given by the lab, and it was transcribed by this elderette. she saw me at a gathering of brethern a few days later, and announced what was wrong with me. first of all i was shocked that she even knew.

    What this woman did was inappropriate. It is not part of her function in the doctor's office to give a patient that information, EVER. The responsibility for divulging that kind of diagnostic information to a patient is the doctor's, even if the information is inconsequential or minor in nature. The fact that she did this in a public place, is even more reprehensible.

    You asked "what could I do?" It's very simple really. You write a letter to the physician, and complain about their employee. Physicians take a VERY dim view of unethical behaviour, and are ESPECIALLY protective of patient confidentiality, and she would have been reprimanded at the very least, and could have been dismissed on the spot. If she had complained to the elders about it, they would not have given her any support for her unethical behaviour, and very likely she would have been reproved. You have EVERY LEGAL right to maintain the confidentiality of your medical records.

    Like I said earlier, we have to start making JWs accept responsibility and consequences for their behaviour. If we keep letting them get away with it, they will continue to abuse privileged information.

    Love, Scully
    UADNA-C (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America-Canada)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit