Some professions are bind by confidentiality laws and there must be strict compliance with it.
Medical practitioners with the health history and data of patients, which is not allowed to be heard by a third party based on law surrounding their profession and it's ethics. A patient feels safe been tested by a doctor and trusted them with their health not because it's a privilege alone but because it's a necessity.
So many people would rather confide in their spiritual leaders with their secrecy which they might not be bold enough to share with their partners, siblings or parents. They are not bound by law to keep these secrets like other professions but as a role that carries maturity and sense of responsibility of looking out for their members, they are bound by responsibility if not by law to keep things shared with them confidential and not a point of conversation or paragraph to preach during sermon.
But at what point does it become exceptional that secrets shared by people with these priests or spiritual leaders, health results of patients for their medical treatment do not have to be confidential?
Let's take for instance, a woman who has a critical health issue but has been trying so hard to conceive and give birth to a baby. She finally got pregnant but then, the medical results shows that she had to either abort the pregnancy or lose her life in the process of having a child. Like it's a 50:50 situation.
This is something crucial to her, her health, life and whatever decision she makes determines what becomes of her.
At the end of the day, she decides to leave the baby so that she could be calm a mum too.
In this kind of situation, the medical practitioner may choose to involve another party which is a close family of hers, either a partner or another, just to be sure that she is not been rude by emotions that will cost her life.
In fact, the extent of the implications may be discussed when the third part is finally involved.
Information shared with these professionals are private and so so confidential but when it turns to a life threatening information then there may be a bridge to balance by spilling it out.
A priest who was confessed to and confided in by a terrorist to have planted bombs at some locations and waiting for time of explosion would definitely have to involve the police BUT identity might not be disclosed unless they fish him or her out themselves.
This is not to encourage crimes in my own thinking but so that trust in disclosing these information by another person won't be hindered. Once trust is broken, it becomes hard to regain it and even if it is regained, it can't be strong like before.
It is so skeptical and these people might get stuck in between making decisions that put their reputation at stake even when it is legal and official but the fact remains that endangering life(ves) in order not to make compromises isn't the right solution but there should be exceptions when it's at a critical point of action.
I'll be dropping my 🖊️ here on the Hive Learners community prompt
Thanks for reading through 🤗
All images are generated using Meta AI
