The traditional arguments for Qualified Confidentiality as stated in lecture is a conflict of professional values between respect for patient privacy and the well-being of the 3rd party. Traditionally, the duty to protect innocent 3rd parties far outweighs the duty of confidentiality with that being said, confidentiality should almost always be broken to protect the 3rd parties’ life and/or well-being. Fleck and Angell both believe that there is a duty to warn and that confidentiality is not absolute. However, Fleck believes in certain conditions that must be met in order for that “duty to warn” is met. In the “Please don’t tell” article Fleck believes that the duty to warn is not met because of three conditions in the scenario of the article. The first condition, is that there is no imminent threat of serious and irreversible harm in the case of Consuela and Carlos. Fleck uses an example in which 247 surgeons performing surgery on 247 HIV infected patients, with a nick on the finger only 1 in 247 surgeons has a…show more content… However, Fleck would argue that the conditions in the physician’s case to warn Wilma would not be met based on his criteria. Fleck would believe that the imminent threat of serious and irreversible harm to Wilma was of not real danger. Like Consuela, Wilma could be taught precautions in which to be taught and use when with Andrew. The third point to Flecks argument would be that if Wilma is told of Andrew’s AIDs status then there is the chance that Wilma would no longer be interested in reconciliation with Andrew. From the prospective of Angell, it would be wrong not to tell Wilma of Andrew’s AIDs status because in Angell’s view she has a right to information that she might consider relevant to her care. If Wilma is not informed of Andrews status, how could she be expected to use any sorts of precautions when having any interaction with
