Medical practitioners, as is the case with other professionals (lawyers or banking professionals for example) that, because of their activities, they acquire a direct contact with sensitive information and issues concerning life and privacy of other people (their customers) are bound by a duty of secrecy in relation to these aspects. In the case of medical professionals is called the Hippocratic Oath, which binds them irrespective of the place where they carry out their work, which explicitly contains the obligation to secrecy. Indeed, doctors, surgeons, nurses, specialists … are inescapably bound by a Privacy Principle with patients who try, and that is founded on the Right to Privacy, which is supported in all Texts on Human Rights and Freedoms Public force in the world. What is the main reason for this duty of secrecy? His justification is perfectly rational. We all have a perfect right to remain for ourselves those aspects that affect us more directly and intimately, and among them those concerning our own health conditions. Thus, the fact that those responsible for ensuring the same from being bound by a duty of these features allows patients to confide openly issues that otherwise might be tempted to hide, so that their own welfare could be seriously affected, for example, can not reach detected no disease or surgical intervention necessary. Ultimately, this duty of secrecy is one of the pillars on which rests the medicine for more than two thousand years, and the fracture would have serious repercussions.

The failings of the medical practitioners of their duty of confidentiality The question that arises after this argument is what would happen if a professional in medicine, ignoring his duty, disclose sensitive information about the health of a patient without having to any way with their consent? In such cases could speak without any doubt one of the commission by that Professional Medical Malpractice alleged for having violated the same duty as clearly integral to their profession such as medical confidentiality, thus injuring their rights patient. The same, surely, should be subject to compensation, which would require an evaluation of the material damage that could have been caused in that patient by the same and the extent to which his life could have been affected by it ( Imagine, for example, had revealed publicly that the patient has AIDS or suffering from some kind of addiction). The only exception I could accept this duty could take place on public health grounds, for example if there is a danger that might spread some kind of disease, in which case the physician should alert the authorities about it.