English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Secrecy in the handling of information obtained by the physician during the development of the medical act presupposes the obligation to maintain certain data and at certain circumstances under good protection, preventing that its disclosure might cause any harm to the personal, social, religious, etc. integrity of the patient. The above principle is not new to the doctor. From a deontological point of view, there are documents such as the Hippocratic Oath, Asclepius Advice and the International Code of Medical Ethics where the obligation to keep information entrusted by patients under absolute secrecy as a basic ethical principle in the exercise of the profession. With regard to legal regulations, since last century, the Criminal Code contains the crime of “disclosure of secrets” that forces confidentiality in the management of information, especially when the responsibility of secrecy is acquired as a professional or public servant (articles 210 and 211 of the Federal Criminal Code in force). In turn, Constitutional Article 5 Regulatory Law on the practice of professions in the Federal District, imposes on the professional the obligation to “strictly keep the secrecy of matters conferred to him/her by his/her clients” (article 36). Similar provisions were found in the NOM 168 standard for the medical record (section 5.6) and in the NOM 190 standard on criteria for the medical care of intrafamily violence (section 5.7), recently replaced by NOM-004 and NOM 046, respectively. As part of the second reform that was applied to article 6 of our Constitution in 2007, a clearer meaning is given to the “right of access to information”, laying the groundwork for the full exercise of this guarantee and forcing the State to clearly and opportunely make the information in possession of any entity of the government available to any citizen. However, when it comes to information resulting from medical care, protection continues in the use it is given because it is considered part of people’s private life (currently, article 6, section A, fraction II of the Political Constitution). Protection, access, rectification and cancellation of the use of personal data acquired the nature of fundamental human right when Article 16 of the Constitution was modified in 2009. Abstract

Emerging issues in the Mexican legislation on the use of personal data in medical care and confidentiality as a right of physicians