Check out some similar questions!

tyklmyfnz · Oct 21, 2006, 09:13 AM

My 15 year old son recently ran away from home. I contacted every friend of his and one of those friends parents happen to be a local "well known" Doctor. The Doctor and his family; My son's friend, his sister, mother and the Doctor himself were all present when I went to their home asking if anyone knew the whereabouts of my son. The Doctor immediately stepped up and said " We all know where your son is. But we are not going to tell you because I don't want to have my son breach the confidence between your son and my son." I specifically asked the Doctor and his wife if they knew exactly where my son was. They both replied, " Yes." When I said to them " You are refusing to tell me where my son is?" Again both the Doctor and his wife said yes. At that point, the Doctor told me I needed to leave their home, which I did and immediately and called the police. The police came and the Doctor and his family changed their tune and the Doctor and his family were wrong in knowing the location of my son.

OK, the question here is: Did the Doctor have some sort of legal right to keep that information from me? Morally I know he should have told me, but now ethics are a part of this question as well. What if my son had been laying hurt somewhere? Or worse found dead? Thank God he was found OK... But at what point does the Doctor have a "duty" to tell me where my son was? Everyone I have spoken too, have all agreed the Doctor was wrong in keeping that information from me.

J_9 · Oct 21, 2006, 09:23 AM

Yes, the doctor was wrong. The only time info can be withheld is in doctor-patient privilege. If the doctor learned the information during a doctor's visit then the doctor can keep it private. But if it is not part of your son's medical record then the doctor does not have doctor-patient privilege as your son was not a patient at the time of disclosure.

**EDIT** However, it also was not his legal obligation to tell you either. It was his choice not to tell you. Maybe your son told him and his family some half-truths, or bold faced lies, about you and they thought they were protecting him from harm. So, legally he could not hold the information from you for the reasons set forth above, however, morally he may have felt he was acting in the best interest of your son.

excon · Oct 21, 2006, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by tyklmyfnz

Did the Doctor have some sort of legal right to keep that information from me?

Everyone I have spoken too, have all agreed the Doctor was wrong in keeping that information from me.

Hello tk:

Not surprising that I should disagree with "everyone".

It doesn't matter that he's a doctor. He wasn't acting in that capacity. He was acting in the capacity as a parent. As a parent, he has NO obligation to tell you ANYTHING. What would make you think that because he's a doctor, he must tell you anything you want to know? Where did you ever get that? All doctors must tell the truth?? To ANYONE who asks?? Nope.

Apparently, he does have ethics as a parent. He was demonstrating them.

In summation; he has NO obligation to tell you anything, ever!

excon

valinors_sorrow · Oct 21, 2006, 11:32 AM

I would just about guess that the good doctor and his wife were quickly educated by the police about the laws governing the illegal sheltering of minors. I don't think any adult is legally permitted to keep the whereabouts of a minor child from a custodial parent without some kind of legal beagle process. How I know this has to do with the education I got when a minor (without permission from the parents-- who knows where they were) demanded to be picked up from a park (where the whole family was apparently squatting) and taken to a local AA meeting. I instinctively refused to send help until further research. The police went there instead. Adults need to be mindful of the laws concerning "helping" kids that aren't their own, at least in the state of Florida.

Fr_Chuck · Oct 21, 2006, 12:44 PM

He has not right to not tell you by any medcial oath.

And have you ever considered he told them a lie about where he was at, that they knew but lied to the police after you called them.

If he knew and was part of the child running away, there may be civil damages you can sue them for.

excon · Oct 21, 2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

I would just about guess that the good doctor and his wife were quickly educated by the police about the laws governing the illegal sheltering of minors. I don't think any adult is legally permitted to keep the whereabouts of a minor child from a custodial parent without some kind of legal beagle process.

Hello val:

NOT speaking with the family, is not the same thing as "illegal sheltering of minors". Yes, the cops want information. They'll ask. But, nobody is required to give it. Let me say that again - in these United States, nobody is required to speak to the police or anybody, about anything - ever. I don't care how much you know, even it you know who done it.

excon

PS> Of course, under oath is a different matter altogether.

valinors_sorrow · Oct 21, 2006, 01:08 PM

Hey, I think I best check the law books Excon... let's start with terms like aiding and abetting/accessory. I agree that there are many circumstances where you don't have to speak to the police but I know there are also quite a few circumstances where if you withhold information there are legal repercussions long before you'll be under any oath. But don't take my word for it, ask your lawyer.

J_9 · Oct 21, 2006, 01:10 PM

Such as in the welfare of a minor?

excon · Oct 21, 2006, 01:31 PM

Hello again, val:

We need to be clear about our terms.

Aiding and abetting is a separate crime. It takes an "overt" act to be guilty of aiding someone in the commission of a crime. Conspiracy? Same thing.

NOT talking to the police is not an overt act, and isn't even close to being criminal. It's your right, under the Constitution, NOT to talk to the police.

However, if someone decides to talk to the police and lies to them, that is ANOTHER separate crime. NOT talking to the police isn't lying. It's your right, under the Constitution.

If you have information that the police want, you are NOT guilty of anything if you withhold it. It's your right to withhold anything you want from anybody you want. Withholding information, in and of itself, is NOT a crime.

excon

valinors_sorrow · Oct 21, 2006, 01:42 PM

If I am not mistaken, the withholding as a crime might go like this: (bold print edited after the fact)
The Doctor's son hides his friend, tells his dad.
The police undoubtedly told him the son is committing a crime (albeit a minor one LOL no pun intended - hiding a runaway minor is against the law or are we going to start debating that one too excon LOL) and Dad's withholding information of that crime makes him an accessory to it, which is also a real crime, not something made up for TV. Come on... why else would the good doctor blab so fast to the police?

There are also other aspects to consider, legal ones that I don't know much about so I wasn't going to raise it, but it has to do with the sovereignty of relationships (like the one between a child and a custodial parent) and how interference with them is not tolerated by the law too. Which is partly why its so hard to take a kid from a parent...

Are you even aware that a minor is involved here excon?

excon · Oct 21, 2006, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

If I am not mistaken, it goes like this:
The Doctor's son hides his friend, tells his dad.

Hello val:

You are mistaken, val. I didn't read that. The boy is hiding. I don't know who is hiding him. I don't know if ANYBODY is hiding him. The doctors son isn't, or at least tk doesn't say so. The doctors family just KNOWS where the boy is hiding.

I think there's a big difference between the father KNOWING his son is COMPLICIT in an act, and knowing that an act (that might not, in and of itself, be illegal) has been committed by someone. Indeed, maybe there is no criminal activity here at all. Maybe the boy himself committed the act. Maybe NOBODY is hiding him. Maybe he's just hiding, and the doctors family just happens to know where.

Nope. The doctor owe's NOBODY a word - not the cops - not the mother.

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

Are you even aware that a minor is involved here Excon?

Yup. I read that part.

excon

valinors_sorrow · Oct 21, 2006, 04:22 PM

Oy vey

I didn't say the OP read like that.
I was simply laying out an example of where withholding information is illegal to counter your claim that it is never illegal.

That was all. I have edited my earlier post to emphasize that.

Who knows how it really went with for the missing kid, the doctor and the police!

ScottGem · Oct 21, 2006, 05:44 PM

I'm with excon here. First, I think there is some info missing here. Im for one, would like to know WHY the boy ran away.

Second, and I'm not sure of my legal ground here, but I don't know that a crime has been committed here. Is running away a crime? I'm not sure that it is. And unless the doctor and his family actively participated in the son's running away, I don't know that they were a party to any crime. Ergo, they have the right to not provide information to the police. Remember the 5th Amendment.

valinors_sorrow · Oct 21, 2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I'm with excon here. First, I think there is some info missing here. Im for one, would like to know WHY the boy ran away.

Second, and I'm not sure of my legal ground here, but I don't know that a crime has been committed here. Is running away a crime? I'm not sure that it is. And unless the doctor and his family actively participated in the son's running away, I don't know that they were a party to any crime. Ergo, they have the right to not provide information to the police. Remember the 5th Amendment.

Actually, I totally agree with both you Scott and Excon about the actual events: very little is factually known.

Just in case the point was missed again: where I don't agree is that withholding information from the police is completely free of any legal ramifications in any and all circumstances. I can only hope that if you two ever find yourself in situations concerning a minor who isn't your legal responsibility that you know the laws of your land well or have a decently priced attorney, whichever suits you. LOL I can only state what I learned from my firsthand experiences dealing with minors and laws the govern what is permissible concerning their whereabouts... need I say more? I wish you both well and at this point won't be debating further with you since that is not factually required of me and obviously bears no legal ramifications whatsoever. :p

ScottGem · Oct 21, 2006, 05:52 PM

Now you are talking two different issues. Legal ramifications? No one is saying there may not be legal ramifications to witholding information from the police. Of course there may be. But doesn't change the fact that no one is required to do so.

excon · Oct 21, 2006, 08:22 PM

Hello again:

Yes, val, you are required to continue the debate, according to rule #23.4.

My answer was in regard to whether a doctor is "required" to give information. Of course, he isn't. That doesn't mean that I don't think he should, or that I wouldn't in the same situation.

Too many times, the police aren't interested in finding missing children. They, instead, are interested in finding someone to bust (the Ramsay's). One must measure ones cooperation with the police against that possibility. When and if one gets a sense that THEY are being targeted, the cooperation must STOP.

In college I drove a cab. Some junkies used me to drive them around so they could shoplift. I didn't know that's what they were doing. They went into a store and came out with stuff. That's what all my customers did when they went shopping.

They got caught. The cops wanted me to talk to them. I said that I would come in after my shift. They didn't like that. When I went in, they kept on insisting that I had to know what they were doing. I told them that I don't pay attention too much to what my passengers did. They didn't like that. They thought I should have been watching them more closely. I told them I don't watch my customers. They didn't like that. I helped until they accused me of being an accomplice, which of course, I knew they would.

I still cannot think of a single scenario where the law requires anyone to divulge anything to anybody.

excon

valinors_sorrow · Oct 21, 2006, 08:30 PM

I am sorry for your poor treatment by those police, excon. I mean that. I am sorry its allowed you to hold onto a view that may or may not mesh with a wider reality too. Please think about that. I am sorry if you can't think of a single situation where withholding information might be an actual crime. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Am I supposed to feel sorry that I can think up one and did? But most of all I am sorry I responded to this thread. Well, embarrassed mostly and I apologise for participating in what looks like a nit picking membership discussion all over someone else's thread. I am sorry Tyklmyfnz, for highjacking your thread. Thanks for posting.

excon · Oct 21, 2006, 08:41 PM

Hello again:

No problem, val. They treated me much worse later on, but that's another story.

I don't think you need to be embarrassed. You raise excellent points that I'm still considering. Most people don't get me to thinking like that. I don't believe we hijacked anything. I think it was a good discussion right ON the legal point raised by the OP.

I'll shuddup now too.

excon

ScottGem · Oct 22, 2006, 08:22 AM

I also don't think we highjacked the thread. The original question was basically whether the doctor had a right not to tell where the son was or a duty to tell. The OP seemed to think the doctor was "morally" obligated to tell.

To sum up, I think the fact that he is a doctor has no bearing on the situation since he was not acting in a doctor/patient relation. I also think the doctor was under no legal obligation to reveal what he knew. And I don't think we know enough to determine whether he was under a moral obligation. We would have to know why the son ran away and whether he was in any danger to determine that.

The doctor was apparentally acting on what he felt was a higher ethical obligation. That was to his son to protect what the son told him in confidence.

Whether there might have been legal ramifications to the doctor's actions we can't know since we don't know more about why the son ran away and where he was.

All the people the OP talked to who said the docotor was wrong may have been talking with more knowledge then we have. But based on what we do know, I would have to say the docotor wasn't wrong.

valinors_sorrow · Oct 22, 2006, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

The doctor was apparentally acting on what he felt was a higher ethical obligation. That was to his son to protect what the son told him in confidence.

Hmm, that conveniently only tells half the story as I read it. The rest of the story is: The doctor folds on his higher obligation the minute the police show up. I don't think we can do more than some Sherlock-style deductive reasoning here BUT even that has value.

If I am may, the doctor's aboutface suggests at first glance three things which I list in what I list in an order of least probably to most probable, in my guess of human nature and the few facts presented.

1. Either the doctor was so intimidated by the police.

2. He saw his mistake about the higher obligation at this time, either with or without direct involvement of the police and changed his tactics.

3. There are legal grounds to compell him to talk.

Forgive me if I moved too fast back there, but I voted for number three and gave plausible examples of it.

This is more like what the OP was asking, I believe. Am I correct Tyklmyfnz?