ArticleNigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
The Ethical Dilemma of Balancing Confidentiality and Duty to Protect: A Case Report of Comorbid Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder with Homicidal Thoughts.
Article in Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Forensic psychiatry and mental health services within the Nigerian criminal justice system.Discover mental health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a report of a 29-year-old female with a history of Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder who presented with auditory hallucinations that asked her to kill her immediate supervisor. She presented the ethical dilemma many healthcare providers face in balancing the principles of patient confidentiality with the duty to protect and beneficence. The clinicians breached the patient's right to confidentiality to protect her supervisor by informing the supervisor, their manager, and the police. However, they also ensured her job security, which she risked in an environment where mental illness is highly stigmatized. This case highlights the importance of considering the ethical principles of disclosing confidential information, such as the Tarasoff I and II, and beneficence (as her job was protected) in making clinical decisions. It also summarizes the legal precedents established by the Tarasoff cases and the implications for clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38974070PMC11223015What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.