A uniform aspect of psychology, among all practitioners, is the sanctity of patient confidentiality. However, just as no two psychology practitioners are the same, neither are confidentiality protocols. Due to the flexibility of the privacy system, violations are common and problematic. The problems related to the lack of an objective and universal system of confidentiality must be addressed and improved by the psychological community. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayOne of the few consensuses on confidentiality is that, in general, it is encouraged, an 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 systematically increases the likelihood that an individual will disclose information. Stiles also emphasizes that maintaining confidentiality is a gesture of respect for the patient and can even prevent identity theft in research. However, another consensus is that privacy has its limits due to a subjective system that does not currently work. Much of what limits the promise of confidentiality is mandatory reporting, in which a practitioner actively discloses information as required by law or protocol. . According to Stiles, despite HIPAA's patient protections, constitutional freedom of information makes confidentiality less sacred in some cases. That is, HIPAA requires the concealment of personal information while freedom of information requires its disclosure; a dilemma that a mandatory declarant must face in a more flexible, “case-by-case” system. Bersoff, for example, explained how many people believe that a patient's potential threat to themselves or others makes a breach of confidentiality acceptable and therefore wait for a report. Mandatory reporting means that the psychological community must violate confidentiality in certain situations or face prosecution. Bersoff's article describes how certain situations are sometimes defined by law, and sometimes not. Although Hoyt implores that [military] psychologists inform their patients about potential boundaries in the event of a violation, Neilsen addresses the problem that patients may not understand who their information may be intended for or what is being said, and are not so not understood. truly give informed consent. Hoyt gives 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 security threats or child abuse or neglect. However, Hoyt also states that sexual assault, war crimes and even substance abuse issues can be grounds for breaching confidentiality. Mandatory reporting is not the only means of breach of confidentiality, however; Sometimes confidentiality is not actively betrayed by the therapist, but is achieved in a more passive manner. An example of this comes from a study by Bulling, in which a survey was conducted of hospitals in which information considered confidential by certain health and legal systems was permitted to be viewed by the chaplains of a particular hospital .Fortunately, Bulling et al. found sharing information an improvement; the study found that confidentiality was a barrier to collaboration in a patient's care. Bulling et al. claimed that confidentiality would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for sexual assault response teams, child welfare, doctors and other caregivers to be involved when needed. Ultimately, the results were better performing chaplains and happier, more responsive patients because the chaplains were more knowledgeable about the patients' struggles. Although it is nice to know that this study had a happy ending, it is an isolated study and one can easily argue that the chaplains and hospital were lucky; abuse, inflammatory scandals, or angry and distrustful patients might as well have been the case. Another passive privacy violation may be caused not by the administration's decision but by the overall system being vulnerable and unadaptable. Bersoff suggested that the system protecting privacy is too indefinite, and Nielsen and Smolyansky agree that introducing better technology only 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 whose disclosure is not authorized by their child, the patient. Before confidential notes were fed 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 parents or other family members are also not clearly protected by this new network. In response to Nielsen's work, Smolyansky et al. requested and received four reports from four hospitals in the United States that were integrating a new version of electronic medical records into their workplace. With no training or clear protocols provided on how to navigate this sensitive new network, each hospital had a different plan. Most hospitals set up some sort of committee, sometimes multiple committees, to resolve network issues. However, some hospitals only set up the committees once the network was already up and running in the hospital. Essentially, the hospitals agreed to repair the potential damage caused by this unknown system instead of trying to prevent it in the first place, despite the fact that privacy violations and leaks of private information cannot be fully repaired . One of the hospitals found itself in legal confusion because the two states it operated in had different privacy laws. A few have also made their own privacy rules more subjective than before, introducing the word "sensitive" into the system. The word “sensitive” essentially warns against potentially objectionable or private content, but does not pose any legal or technical barriers to prevent an unauthorized person from viewing it. No action has been taken regarding any unauthorized breach of confidentiality or problems occurring at any of the hospitals. However, the effectiveness of each hospital's plan can easily be criticized as flawed and in need of revision. Improvements can be made both in the actions of practitioners and in the confidentiality system itself. For these improvements, each article offered its own suggestions. Stiles suggests that practitioners, in.