cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/37697209
- Pope Leo XIV has said he will not authorise the creation of an AI avatar of himself, as it would blur the lines between truth and fiction.
- The Pope also noted that he is concerned with AI’s impact on human dignity and jobs.
- If automation replaces too many people and only a few can work, that could be a “huge problem” the Pope said.
No, i just know how to read.
From your source:
“disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm.”
Admitting something happened in the past is not a risk something will happen in the future. I mentioned how they have an exception for when people are in danger in the near future in my comment.
Its not uncommon for patients to confess to something in the past that was covered up and is since no longer happening.
Also note how i said local laws may be different, this is a uk source. The professionals i asked this question where not from the UK.
To give you as much straightforward an example.
If a patient admits to having harmed many kids while they have or work with kids, thats is a reason to break secrecy.
But if they said they raped and murdered a kid 30 years ago. That alone is not enough to break secrecy, there is no automatic assumption of repeat offending.
That is not the full paragraph. It reads:
“If it is not practicable or appropriate to seek consent, and in exceptional cases where a patient has refused consent, disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. The benefits to an individual or to society of the disclosure must outweigh both the patient’s and the public interest in keeping the information confidential.”
Let’s not forget that you had previously stated:
From this UK source, doctors are explicitly exempt from violating doctor-patient confidentiality in the aforementioned case. This directly contradicts your statement.
I’m eager to read your referenced citations from the individuals you’ve interviewed in other regions where doctors would be banned in such cases.
The fuller quote does not add more nuance here. I am not sure how you are deriving at your interpretation. Can you give an example of an “afformented case” that validates this exception?
It is not in the public interest to break doctor patient confidentiality about events that happend in the past when It is vastly better if the patient understands their wrongdoing and goed to law enforcement themselves. There is usually plenty of time to convince them if its clear there is no actual risk to a living person in the now.
There is no interview, there is a question i was curious about years ago while i had access to psychiatric professionals so inquired them about what the law said about it.
I’ve no interest in debating your opinion, forgive me for not entertaining it. Perhaps you’ve not recalled your past interactions accurately, and my only goal here is to correct the misinformation written in this thread.
If you’re instead looking for some sources, I’ve performed a rudimentary search on interpreting paragraph 64:
Fair
“The aforementioned case” just means “the case that was mentioned previously.”
Yes, it is 100% in the public interest to break confidentiality to report instances of egregious bodily harm to other human beings. The confessional seal should not be more important than justice for victims of crimes. This is why many countries have mandatory reporting requirements.
It is not for the priest to decide whether someone is at risk of reoffending. We should not trust bad people to police themselves. And if the situation is someone confessing to hurting another person, they have already breached the trust placed in them by society. If you just ask them to turn themselves in, they will often breach that trust again.
We (i) don’t actually know the rules for priests, just that its the origins for how it works for medical personnel.
This 100% feels very dangerous, psychiatrists provide a huge service to the public interests, you are advocating to undermine it with no nuance to individual cases.
Take for example. Someone with guilt and is contemplating to go to authorities themselves. The source material poop provided even starts with specifying refusal to consent as a possible requirement.
Good thing the job of psychiatrists has a high bar of required study and expertise.
Priest sadly not as much.