Patient privacy is the one of the most important concerns in the health care industry; therefore, the search for methods of privacy and confidentiality continues , , . Doctors and other medical professionals who work with patients and their private health care records must stick on to the approaches, strategies, and laws intended to ensure persistent security and privacy . However, the availability to use the medical information among the network of hospitals and laboratories creates patient privacy issues . Previous research has discussed about the different ways of patient’s privacy violations. One of the main concerns is the protection of radiology images . These images are shared among the medical community for various purposes. Various studies have been done to technologically prevent this misuse of medical information and protecting patient’s privacy . Few studies also discussed about the online consulting via social networking cites which includes exchange of personal medical data on internet ad concerns associated with it . Its human right to protect their privacy and bioethics is necessary for a better living .
The concerns associated with bioethics are different with different cases . Few nations have statutory guidelines, while others depend on milder types of guidelines yet there is no uniform standard on the dimension of data that the patients ought to be given to guarantee that consent is sufficient or not , . The current research focuses on the ethical law suits which can help in the protection of patient’s privacy. This can be achieved by following more ethical law suits and maintaining them often whenever its necessary . The doctor and the other medical staff should be responsible and subjected to criminal risk and charged for moral judgment . With the advancement of technology and its incorporation in ethical law suits can help in protecting patient’s privacy.
- S. Tridandapani, P. Bhatti and C. Wick, ‘Patient Photographs: Privacy Versus Protection’, American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 212, no. 2, pp. 320-322, 2019. Available: 10.2214/ajr.18.20452.
- J. Bittner et al., ‘A Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) statement on closed social media (Facebook®) groups for clinical education and consultation: issues of informed consent, patient privacy, and surgeon protection’, Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1-7, 2018. Available: 10.1007/s00464-018-6569-2.
- G. Annas, ‘(Public) Health and Human Rights: Of Bridges and Matrixes’, The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 13-15, 2017. Available: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1353169.
- M. Aulisio and R. Arnold, ‘Role of the Ethics Committee: Helping To Address Value Conflicts or Uncertainties’, chestjournal.org, vol. 134, 2008. Available: http://www.chestjournal.org/misc/reprints.shtml. [Accessed 11 November 2008].