A perspective on the ethics of disclosure deals with a God-centered view, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim: facts can be considered friendly or hostile. The realist will tend to the first conclusion, the idealist or materialist to the second. Although the facts may be friendly, the professional will try to make an effort to make them fall into friendly hands. For hostile hands, even the friendliest facts can be disturbed. But the possibility that facts could fall into hostile hands cannot be a reason for general disclosure. As mentioned earlier, the amount of information requires selection when disclosing. Aspects that encourage low disclosure in organizations include immutable programs, rigid parliamentary procedures, a forced “positive” attitude, and the classification of information as secret or confidential. “What people don`t know won`t hurt them” is a common maxim. There is a general belief that the disclosure of information and not the fact itself is to blame.
For example, many discussions in the Watergate trials revolved around the fact that President Nixon could have saved himself if the tapes had been destroyed. It was often given the impression that the tapes brought him down, rather than the actions and speeches recorded on the tapes. The existence or non-existence of the tapes would not have changed the real facts. The absolute secrecy of written documents has diminished in recent years. Documents classified by the government and specially ordered by the court still enjoy a certain degree of secrecy. This also applies to oral communication. But the erosion of privacy in a high-disclosure society is a major concern for many citizens. Steele presents three threats that it considers to be the underlying causes of low disclosure.
The first threat concerns the evaluation of information. This is the threat that the person disclosing the information will be rejected or harmed by the disclosed information. Second, the person receiving the disclosure may be upset or alienated by the disclosure, so there is a risk of social loss. The third threat is loss of control. Once a disclosure is made, the person disclosing it has abandoned various problem-solving strategies (pp. 9, 10). The human narrative begins with an assault of revelations. Before Adam, all kinds of nature paraded by, and he names them all.
God reveals Himself openly to Adam and Eve, there is no secret. Secrecy enters the record with sin. Not God, but man was hiding. Finally, the open door of Eden closes for humanity, but not for eternity. “Only one case of HIV transmission from a health professional to a patient has been documented. The case involved an HIV-positive dentist who may have infected a patient. Currently, the debate revolves around the argument of disclosure of HIV status. Should HIV+ GPs inform their patients about their illness? What about HIV+ surgeons? Nurses? Are the current safeguards sufficient? Many hospitals have a “don`t ask, don`t say” policy towards infected employees. For fear of litigation from healthcare professionals and patients, they turn a blind eye.
Revelation is a cardinal principle of God. Heaven provides all the information that man can understand. Full disclosure of all information would bury humans under an avalanche of irrelevant data. God opens himself to man a little after the other, each time more and more. In this way, God gives time to mature a lasting personal relationship. The decision to disclose or not to disclose often has to be made by an individual, as the exchange of information as part of the disclosure decision process itself is already a disclosure. Therefore, each individual must judge for himself or herself whether the disclosure or the study of the disclosure is relevant or irrelevant. Sometimes it may be appropriate to involve another person in this decision-making process, limiting the initial disclosure to a single person. These two, or in some cases more people, then decide on the relevance or insignificance of a subsequent disclosure. With current concepts of freedom of information, this decision-making process of the latter group can be challenged in terms of disclosure. .