User talk:Britanny.tran/sandbox

Recently, there was a comment left on the talk page on the original Wiki page that was posted. The user said: "Is a physician(specifically psychologist) allowed to consult his/her colleagues about a patient or is that against physician/patient confidentiality? Thanks. --Mentaka 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

It intrigued my interest because it shows the original post not answering this type of question for people to investigate. It does not give a proper explanation of client confidentiality & how it is needed in the public. In my Wikipedia, I have spoke about this because people need to understand no matter what field, WHY it is needed or required.

In addition, the original Wikipedia article did not have sources that it could cite to reference the information. For my edited article, I have added several sources so far. It was said it did not support a world view. I deleted the whole section which were just examples. It did not cover the basis of confidentiality. I broke down the information by defining confidentiality.

This is the original article for client confidentiality: "Client confidentiality is the principle that an institution or individual should not reveal information about their clients to a third party without the consent of the client or a clear legal reason. This concept is commonly provided for in law in most countries.

The access to a client's data as provided by the institution in question is usually limited to law enforcement agencies and requires some legal procedures to be accomplished prior to such action (e.g.: court order issued, etc.). This applies to bank account information or medical record. In some cases the data is by definition inaccessible to third parties and should never be revealed; this can include confidential information gathered by attorneys, psychiatrists, psychologists, or priests. One well known result that can seem hard to reconcile is that of a priest hearing a murder confession, but being unable to reveal details to the authorities. However, had it not been for the assumed confidentiality, it is unlikely that the information would have been shared in the first place, and to breach this trust would then discourage others from confiding with priests in the future. So, even if justice was served in that particular case (assuming the confession lead to a correct conviction), it would result in fewer people taking part in what is generally considered a beneficial process. This could also be said of a patient sharing information with a psychiatrist, or a client seeking legal advice from a lawyer."

For my edited page, I have deleted most of this information because it did not have sources for me to reference it to. Although it does give SOME background, it cannot be sourced. To me, it was an opinion. Therefore, it was information I could not used. I had to rebuild the article altogether. I kept the beginning sentence because it captures the essence of this article.

I wanted to provide information to inform the public about confidentiality. Confidentiality plays apart in people's every day lives where they know it or not. If one has a better understanding, it allows the reader to slowly retrieve the concept. Client confidentiality is a broad topic. I wanted to give a general feel of the information and then slowly break it down into components such as medical and etc...

Once a reader has an understanding, I wanted to provide information to give an understanding why confidentiality is used. I wanted to give the topic a sense of importance in society. With that, I wanted to provide cases and laws to reveal an idea of a timeline of how long confidentiality has been fought for. It raises the level of importance and urgency of the topic.

Later in the topic, I wanted to give direction for readers depending on what specific information they were looking for. I provided links so the audience may be redirected and expanding their thinking on the subject.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Britanny.tran (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)