Abstract: In New York state, when the mental health treatment records of a rape victim are sought by the defendant for use as trial evidence in a criminal prosecution, the presiding judge is obligated to determine whether in “requiring disclosure … the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for confidentiality.” Section 33.13 of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law defines the criteria a judge should use in striking that balance between the clinical need for confidentiality of those records and the right of a criminal defendant to “every man’s evidence.” Therein resides the generalizable consideration of profoundly important philosophical, legal, ethical, and clinical principles and priorities.
These questions are, in the first instance, matters of legal ethical obligations, but they also implicate the ethical duty of disclosure born by practitioners in a variety of clinical disciplines including mental health providers, emergency department clinicians and primary care providers. Those clinical obligations, in turn, implicate the ethical obligations of lawyers, both those representing criminal defendants, and those advising clinicians, on their duty to advocate for preservation of the confidentiality rights of their patients. The panel will examine the ethical obligations born by each of the stakeholders in these circumstances, and each of their obligations to consider the ethical duties of the others.
View online here.
Sponsored by the Columbia University Bioethics Program
Location and Address
Online