Final answer:
The general rule for a duty to disclose information mandates parties in legal proceedings to share relevant information, but it has exceptions like national security and personal privacy. Conflicts may arise between different duties, such as when disclosure could harm someone. Laws and ethical standards guide the extent and manner of disclosure in various contexts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The general rule regarding a duty to disclose information is that parties must openly share any evidence or relevant information with each other in an adversarial judicial system, a process known as disclosure. This obligation, however, is not absolute and is subject to certain exceptions. For example, there are nine exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that protect sensitive information such as national security interests, trade secrets, and personal privacy. Similarly, the Sunshine Act also allows for exceptions, including discussions of classified information or proprietary data.
In ethical dilemmas, such as whether to reveal information that could harm someone, there is often a need to balance conflicting duties. For instance, in the medical field, HIPAA provides guidelines for protecting patient privacy rights, which sometimes conflict with the need to inform individuals who may be at risk of a sexually transmitted disease. Moreover, in the political sphere, laws like the Lobbying Disclosure Act aim to promote transparency by requiring disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions.
Ultimately, whether and how much to disclose information depends on the context, with legal, ethical, and situational factors all playing a role in determining the proper course of action.