A uniform aspect of psychology, across all professionals, is the sanctity of patient confidentiality. However, just as no two psychological professionals are the same, neither are the protocols for confidentiality. Due to the flexibility of the privacy system, breaches are a common and problematic occurrence. The problems that arise from the lack of an objective and universal privacy system must be addressed and improved by the psychological community. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay One of the few consensuses about confidentiality is that, in general, it is an encouraged, ethical value in both psychotherapy and research (Stiles, 2011) . Bersoff and Bulling discuss how the promise of confidentiality improves the relationship between patient and therapist, while Stiles reveals that the promise of anonymity consistently increases the likelihood that an individual will reveal information. Stiles also insists that maintaining confidentiality is a gesture of respect towards the patient and can even prevent identity theft in the context of research. However, another consensus is that confidentiality has its limits as a result of a subjective system that currently does not work. Much of what limits the promise of confidentiality is mandatory reporting, where a professional actively disseminates information as required by law or protocol. . According to Stiles, despite HIPAA's protection of patients, constitutional freedom of information makes confidentiality less sacred in some cases. That is, HIPAA requires withholding personal information while Freedom of Information requires disclosure; a dilemma that a mandatory reporter faces in a more flexible, "case by case" system. Bersoff, for example, discussed how many people believe that a patient's potential threat to themselves or others makes a breach of confidentiality acceptable, and therefore expect a report. Mandatory reporting means the psychology community must breach confidentiality in certain situations or risk legal action. Bersoff's article describes how these certain situations are sometimes defined by law, other times not. Although Hoyt implores that [military] psychologists must educate their patients about potential limitations in case a breach is necessary, Neilsen addresses the issue that patients may not understand who their information may be intended for or what is being said, and so they are not truly giving informed consent. Hoyt provides examples of how confidentiality can be violated by military psychologists due to their role as mandatory reporters. Some reasons for mandatory reporting are generally well known, such as threats to safety or child abuse or neglect. However, Hoyt also says that sexual violence, war crimes and even substance abuse problems can be grounds for breach of confidentiality. Mandatory reporting, however, is not the only means of breaching confidentiality; sometimes confidentiality is not actively betrayed by the therapist, but happens in a more passive way. An example of this comes from a study conducted by Bulling, in which a survey was conducted of hospitals where information considered confidential by some healthcare and legal systems could be viewed by chaplains at a particular hospital. Fortunately, Bulling et al. considers information sharing to be an improvement; the study found that confidentiality was an obstacle to collaboration in the care of a patient. Bulling et al.said confidentiality would make it more difficult or impossible for sexual assault response teams, child protection, doctors and other health workers to be involved if necessary. Ultimately, the results were more successful chaplains and happier, more responsive patients, because the chaplains knew the patients' challenges better. While it's nice to know that this study had a happy ending, it's an isolated study and it's safe to say that the chaplains and the hospital were lucky; abuse, incendiary scandals, or angry, distrustful patients could easily have occurred. Another passive breach of confidentiality may be caused not by the administration's decision but by the overall vulnerable and unadaptable system. Bersoff has implied that the privacy protection system is too vague, and Nielsen and Smolyansky agree that introducing better technology makes security worse, not better. According to Nielsen, little attention has been paid to the steps that need to be taken to ensure that parents with proxy access to a confidential network are not allowed to access information that cannot be disclosed by their child, the patient. Before confidential notes were introduced into an online system, this was not a problem; in today's world, where everything is online, it is. Not only is the patient at risk of having disclosed information, but not even parents or other family members are clearly protected from this new network. In response to Nielsen's work, Smolyansky et al. asked for and received four reports from four hospitals in the United States that were incorporating a new version of electronic health records into the workplace. Because no training or clear protocol was provided on how to navigate this new and sensitive network, each hospital had a different plan. Most hospitals set up some sort of committee, sometimes multiple committees, to resolve problems with the network. However, a couple of hospitals only established the committees after the network was already up and running in the hospital. In essence, the hospitals have agreed to remedy the potential harms resulting from the unknown system instead of trying to prevent them in the first place, despite the fact that breaches of confidentiality and leaks of private information cannot be fully repaired. One of the hospitals found itself in a situation of legal confusion, as the two states in which they operated had different laws regarding confidentiality. Some have also made their privacy rules more subjective than before, introducing the word "sensitive" into the system. The word “sensitive” essentially warned of potentially condemnatory or private content, but provided no legal or technical barrier to prevent an unauthorized person from viewing it. No follow-up was found on any unauthorized breaches of confidentiality or issues that occurred at any of the hospitals. However, the effectiveness of each hospital's plan can easily be criticized as imperfect and in need of revision. Improvements can be made both in the actions of professionals and in the confidentiality system itself. For these improvements, each article offered its own suggestions. Stiles suggests that professionals, particularly researchers, seek legal advice to avoid mandatory disclosure of information and to make as little personal identification as possible to eliminate confidentiality concerns altogether. Stiles also suggests a certificate of confidentiality as a means of additional protection for yourself and any information you obtain. While Stiles' idea of ​​improvement is that.