THE HOMELAND | MANIZALES
“The institutions providing health services and the health professionals who intervene in the care process are obliged to keep the confidentiality of the medical history“.
This is how the Constitutional Court on a case of leakage of confidential information in voluntary interruption of pregnancy.
He recalled that the information contained in the medical history corresponds to confidential data.
Paula’s story
Paula took the tutela action in order to protect the rights to privacy, confidentiality and privacy of sensitive data, the legal confidentiality of medical history and the voluntary termination of pregnancy (IVE).
The above, based on two situations: the first, occurred because when Paula went to her IPS and requested the IVE practicethe gynecologist who treated her suggested that she think carefully about the decision and ask God and life to help her. Furthermore, the patient said that the IPS did not perform the procedure on her, but rather referred her to another health institution where it was finally performed.
The second occurred because The IPS staff gave the personal data of their medical history to a Foundationwithout the plaintiff’s authorization, which led to both her and her family receiving phone calls and WhatsApp messages trying to dissuade her from deciding to undergo IVE.
The Ninth Review Chamber declared the current lack of the object due to consummated damage because the leak of Paula’s confidential information and the interference that it received to prevent the practice of the IVE materialized, so it is not possible to go back what happened to prevent the impact caused to the plaintiff.
Also read Safe abortion in Colombia: a right guarantees the physical and mental health of women
Decision
Nevertheless, The Court thoroughly studied the matter due to the seriousness of the factsin order to issue a statement to prevent the damage from being projected into the future and implement the respective corrective measures.
In this way, the Court determined that there was undue interference in the personal autonomy of the patient to undergo the IVE, since The obstetrician-gynecologist who treated her suggested asking God and life for help in making the decision.. In this context, the Court indicated that the doctor-patient relationship does not authorize the health professional to, taking advantage of his knowledge, exceed his intervention beyond indicating to the user the rights that assist her and the risks of the procedure, as well as the pros and cons of the decision, within the framework of health care.
Inadmissible
Therefore, any interference with the final determination made by the patient is inadmissible.
Secondly, regarding the leak of the patient’s confidential information to unauthorized third parties, the Court established that the IPS was in charge of keeping the clinical history and, Although there are protocols regarding the reservation of confidential patient data, finally, the Court found that the provider is responsible for its custody.
In this case, it was concluded that some of the people assigned to the IPS breached the duty of confidentiality and confidentiality of medical history, having disclosed Paula’s information to the Foundation that contacted her without her authorization.
The Ninth Chamber recalled that The information contained in the medical history is subject to confidentialityso the entities and institutions providing health services, as well as the personnel linked to them, are obliged to maintain said confidentiality and keep professional secrecy, regardless of the function being carried out.
This means that cannot be disclosed or publishedwithout the express authorization of the owner or a competent authority in the exercise of their functions.
Therefore, This corporation protected the fundamental rights to privacy, confidentiality and privacy of sensitive data, habeas data, legal confidentiality of medical history, and sexual and reproductive health. within the framework of Paula’s access to voluntary termination of pregnancy and living a life free of violence.
Consequently, he ordered the IPS to initiate an internal investigation into the events that gave rise to the violation of Paula’s rights and, in addition, to initiate a disciplinary investigation against the health professionals who were linked to this procedure at headquarters. review, with the objective of clarifying what happened in the management of the plaintiff’s medical history.
You may be interested National government regulates the conditions for access to abortion
Decisions
In addition, he ordered the sending of a copy of this decision and the results of his investigation to the Medical Ethics Courtto initiate action within the framework of its legal and regulatory powers, with respect to the professionals over whom it has jurisdiction.
He also ordered the IPS to contact Paula and offer her psychological and psychiatric support regarding the effects caused. regarding the violation of their rights.
If the patient accepts it, it must be started immediately and in consultation with her.
It also ordered training for all personnel assigned to the IPS on the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of patients’ medical history and the duties of maintaining the confidentiality and privacy of those patients, in the context of the IVE and the constitutional standards included in Resolution 051 of 2023 of the Ministry of Health. Thirdly, this Court established that the Foundation irregularly accessed Paula’s medical history and undertook non-consensual harassment to try to dissuade her from the decision to undergo IVE.
What was described caused serious psychological and psychiatric damage to the plaintiff.
Consequently, the The Court considered that the Foundation also violated the aforementioned rightshaving contacted Paula illegally to try to persuade her about her decision to have an abortion. Likewise, it determined that the access to the plaintiff’s private data by the Foundation was illegitimate, illegal and unconstitutional, since they were not part of the personnel authorized to access the medical history and they did not have the plaintiff’s express permission to contact her. less to make use of that information and exert undue psychological pressure on it.
Court orders
Thus, The Chamber ordered the Foundation to draft a document in which it offered public excuses to the plaintiff (anonymizing her data), not only for having accessed her confidential information but for having exerted undue psychological pressure on her.
And, from now on, refrain from contacting any person who, eventually and in your opinion, could be in a vulnerable situation and who requires your help within the framework of the IVE, without the express consent of the owner.
Likewise, this court ordered to send a copy of this decision to the superintendencies of Health and Industry and Commerce so that it may be taken into account in the investigation it is carrying out regarding the complaint that Paula filed.
How to access a safe abortion?
In Colombia, Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy is a right for women, girls, young people and pregnant people.
Those who require information and advice on safe abortion services can contact the Profamilia toll-free national line 300 912 4560 or through WhatsApp (+57318 7351722).
You can also go directly to the nearest Profamilia clinic and make an appointment for “Unwanted Pregnancy / Abortion Consultation”, or request a consultation through the website.
Do click here and find more information about LA PATRIA.
follow us on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X, Spotify, TikTok and in our whatsapp channel, so you receive breaking news and more content.
