Final answer:
The Tarasoff decision requires medical professionals to breach confidentiality when a clear threat to an individual is present, which is considered obligatory to protect from harm. Ethical decisions can vary in complexity; however, actions that result in the greatest good for the greatest number are usually favored, unless they involve causing direct harm to others.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Tarasoff decision highlights a critical ethical concern in the medical and mental health professions, balancing patient confidentiality with the duty to protect individuals from harm. In cases where a patient poses a clear threat to someone else, as specified by the Tarasoff ruling, it is both morally and legally mandatory for the professional to report this to the appropriate authorities or potential victims. Considering the ethical conundrum concerning patient's privacy rights versus the right to know of potential harm, higher risks often necessitate breaching confidentiality to prevent significant harm. This is especially true in scenarios where revealing information could prevent the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease. Within the HIPAA guidelines, there are exceptions for public interest and safety that allow for the disclosure of crucial information to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public.
Regarding the hypothetical scenarios, they serve to illustrate the complexity of ethical decisions. The first scenario, involving the trolley, typically finds that flipping the switch is deemed 'obligatory' due to the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. Saving the child in the second scenario is also seen as 'obligatory' as it is a direct action to save a life with minimal personal cost. However, the third scenario, sacrificing one healthy person for the organs to save five, is 'forbidden' as it violates individual rights and the principle of not causing harm to others.