Physician-Patient Relationship: Case 2
A 16-year-old female presents to a family physician to obtain a referral for family therapy. She is estranged from her mother and stepfather, who see the same physician. For many years, this patient responsibly cared for her four younger siblings while their single mother worked. Since her mother's marriage, the family has become involved in a fundamentalist church. The patient moved out when she felt the social and moral restrictions of the family's religion were too burdensome for her. The patient seemed quite mature; she maintained a 3.5 GPA, along with a part-time job. She demonstrated a genuine desire for reconciliation, and the therapy referral was provided. She also requested and obtained a prescription for contraceptives during the visit, with the assurance that her sexual activity would be kept confidential. In follow-up, she reported that the therapist had informed her that if she mentioned anything about being sexually active with her adult partner, he would be obliged to report her to the state. The patient was very concerned about the conflict between this statement and the family physician's prior assurance of confidentiality.
Should this patient's confidentiality be broken?
While the physician has a moral obligation to obey the law, he must balance this against his responsibility to the patient. In researching the Criminal Code of Washington, the physician learned that sexual intercourse with a minor, at least 16, but under 18, is a class C felony, and a reportable offense, if the offender is at least 90 months older than the victim. This patient's relationship did not actually meet the criteria for mandatory reporting. Had this not been the case however, the physician could be justified in weighing the balance of harms arising from the filing of such a report. There is little justification for informing the family of the young woman's sexual activity. Due to the family's strong fundamentalist beliefs, significant damage would have occurred in the family reconciliation process with this discovery. Although they would clearly disapprove of the patient's actions, her choices carry no risk of harm to them.