There is a growing number of physicians’ encounters with the victims of human trafficking, sometimes even without recognizing them as such. Recently, Todres (2017) reported an incident, where Dr. W was requested to screen the women-employees of such a firm for sexually transmitted infections. On the one hand, according to the Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association (2011), it is necessary to safeguard patient confidentiality, including several aspects, such as physical, informational, decisional, and associational privacy. At the same time, it is obligatory to keep the records of all the patients in the healthcare settings while Dr. W was asked not to maintain them to avoid possible arrest of these women. Thus, the doctor understood that in another case, the employees of this firm would not have a chance for diligent healthcare and, moreover, could possibly spread the STIs further.
The case engages issues in several fields, such as criminal law, ethical concerns, human rights, and service provider regulations. From the side of conspiracy law, it is possible to assume that the agreement of Dr. W is equal to the participation in the crime. As she is aware of the crime and did not report it but helped in its realization, the court’s decision can be not in her favor. From the point of view of human rights, prostitution is illegal in the US. Even more, if the minors are employed in the firm, the case falls under the mandatory reported law (Todres, 2016). Ethical considerations here also imply helping a child by breaching confidentiality.
To conclude, the decision in the case of an encounter with human trafficking should be equivocal. By facilitating the activity of an enterprise engaged with human trafficking, a physician is partly responsible for the crimes and exploitation of women and children. Therefore, following the legal frameworks and ethical considerations, such cases should be reported.