此外，在寻找有效地提醒查利，是欣赏他具有医学专业规范下医患保密权利重要，那是在W诉Egdell [ 20 ]的决策考虑，并进一步通过对欧洲人权公约1950，细节的私生活的权利8条汇补充。这是因为可怕的可能也违反了医患保密通知查利的雇主对他的身体状况，他发现查利的操作过程中由于任何病人有权要求医生不会把任何个人信息，他们了解他们的工作职责的过程中未经许可，以决定C V C [ 21 ]。此外，查利还需要建议表示同意必须得到病人可以通过与此情况，Dire透露个人信息查利的雇主披露个人影响。然而，查利还需要注意，特殊情况下可能出现的其他人的安全和健康，否则会在严重的风险[ 23 ]因为披露可能在公共利益时未披露可能会使病人或其他人的死亡或严重伤害的风险，或是合理的检测和预防严重犯罪[ 24 ]。这是反映事实，如银诉监护人报纸公司决定承认Lord Goff（NO 2）[ 25 ]，“有一个公共利益在[有]一具有法律强制力的保护下信心受到保密的义务”[ 26 ]。但也感谢主Goff接着说，“虽然信心的法律保护的基础是有一个公共利益，信心应该被保存和受法律保护的重要，然而，公共利益可以通过其他一些反倾销公共利益倾向于披露超过.
Moreover, in looking to effectively advise Charlie, it is important to appreciate that he has a right to patient-doctor confidentiality under the medical professional codes, that was considered in the decision in W v. Egdell, and was further supplemented by the remit of Article 8 of the ECHR 1950 that details the right to a private life. This is because Mr Dire may have also breached patient-doctor confidentiality by informing Charlie’s employers about his medical condition he discovered during the course of Charlie’s operation since any patient has the right to expect a doctor will not pass on any personal information they learn in the course of their professional duties without permission, illustrated by the decision in C v. C. Furthermore, Charlie also needs to be advised that express consent must be obtained where a patient may be personally affected by the disclosure in relation to this situation where Mr Dire disclosed personal information to Charlie’s employer.However, Charlie also needs to be advised that exceptional circumstances may arise where the health and safety of others would otherwise be at serious risk because disclosure may be in the public interest when failure to disclose may expose the patient or others to the risk of death or serious harm, or is justified for the detection and prevention of serious crime. This is reflective of the fact that, as Lord Goff recognised in the decision in AG v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2), “There is a public interest in [having] a legally enforceable protection of confidences received under a duty of confidentiality”. But it is still also important to appreciate that Lord Goff then went on to say that “although the basis of the law's protection of confidence is that there is a public interest that confidences should be preserved and protected by the law, nevertheless that public interest may be outweighed by some other countervailing public interest which favours disclosure.