Medical ethics play key role in fraternity hazing investigation

Maintaining confidentiality in medical care -- according to an American College of Physicians manual -- can encourage patients to discuss problems candidly and respect the privacy of patients.

"When an individual comes to a health care provider, there is, between them, an important commitment to confidence," said Dr. Margaret Spear, director of University Health Services.

In the case of the Interfraternity Council Board of Control fraternity hazing investigation, Spear said she felt an ethical obligation to bring the possible incident to Student Life Director Stan Latta's attention after she noticed a pattern from patients that suggested hazing.

"I believe that when we observe something that raises this kind of concern, it is our obligation to let someone in authority know about it," she said.

The Daily Collegian confirmed that Kappa Delta Rho, 420 E. Prospect Ave., was contacted Monday in regard to the hazing investigation. But Latta, Greek and Community Life Director Andrea Gaspardino and IFC President Gordon Savage did not deny or confirm which fraternity is being investigated.

Latta did confirm that they met with a fraternity president and past pledge chair to discuss pledging practices at that particular chapter, and the fraternity did not admit to any involvement in hazing activities, Latta said.

Gaspardino agreed with Spear that ethical concerns exist with this incident, and that patient confidentiality should be respected. As far as any investigation is concerned, Gaspardino added, she wants to make sure proper information is obtained, and she wants to conduct the investigation properly to keep touch with the best interests of all those involved.

Although it is important that patient-physician confidentiality is observed, Spear said, confidentiality is not necessarily mandatory because of policy, but because of moral principles.

"Confidentiality, like other ethical duties, is not absolute," according to the Ethics Manual approved by the American College of Physicians. "It may have to be overridden to protect others or the public . . ."

With the possible hazing incident, Spear said, she noticed a pattern among a group of patients that suggested hazing.

"I was seeing, in essence, that students were experiencing adverse health effects from something that someone else was doing to them," she said about the possible hazing.

Hazing is illegal in Pennsylvania and is a violation of University policy.

However, Spear will not give names of patients or specifics in the case, except in a court of law or if the individuals involved give their permission, Spear said.

"The physician must not release information without the patient's consent, unless required by the law or if there is a duty to warn another," according to the ethics manual.

This specific case could fall into the "warn another" category, Spear noted.

A student involved with activities such as hazing should allow his or her name to be made public for several reasons, said some University students. The addition to names of potential victims would make reports of such incidents more convincing to students.

"It wouldn't be to their benefit, but it would be to the greater benefit of students," said Carolyn Knapp (sophomore-management and international business).

Other students thought the physician-patient confidentiality should be observed.

"If it was said in confidence, then it should be kept in confidence," said Jason Keller (junior-agricultural engineering).

Spear added that health services does not want students to stop coming to them when they suffer health effects such as those in the possible hazing case. Health services believes it is important individuals are protected, she said.

Collegian Staff Writer Stacey Confer contributed to this report.