Final answer:
Kipnis' basic argument is that medical confidentiality is an absolute moral duty, in line with Kantian ethics of treating individuals as ends in themselves. Under HIPAA, it would be a violation to disclose patient information without consent, even when others might be at risk. Healthcare professionals face ethical dilemmas and must balance patient autonomy with the potential harm to others.
Step-by-step explanation:
Kipnis' basic argument for unqualified medical confidentiality is C) Kipnis contends that maintaining medical confidentiality is an absolute moral duty, regardless of consequences. This principle is grounded in the view that ethical conduct in the medical field must prioritize the respect for autonomy and privacy of the patient. This perspective aligns with a Kantian ethical framework, which emphasizes treating individuals as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an end, be that scientific advancement, the greater good, or the safety of others.
Within the scope of the HIPAA rules, it would be a violation to contact a sexual partner without the patient's consent. This is because HIPAA regulations prioritize patient confidentiality and place stringent limits on the sharing of personal health information without explicit permission. The tension between the right to privacy and the duty to warn others of potential harm is a complex ethical dilemma that professionals in the medical field must navigate, and often it involves a careful consideration of both ethical principles and legal obligations.
Kant's philosophy suggests that all people have inherent worth that should not be sacrificed for any other end, which implies that medical confidentiality should not be breached even in challenging scenarios. However, applying this ethical theory in practice requires healthcare professionals to weigh the rights of individuals against the potential for harm to others and to make judgments about the permissibility of breaches in confidentiality on a case-by-case basis, always seeking ways to honor the patient's autonomy and privacy while considering the wellbeing of others potentially affected by the patient's condition.