In Ewing v. Goldstein, threats communicated by a family member are considered patient communications for the purpose of which?

• A. To facilitate and further the patient’s treatment
• B. To avoid liability
• C. For personal gain
• D. For public safety action

Answer: (A)

The basic idea is that protecting a patient’s confidential communications supports their care. In California, the scope of what counts as a patient communication can include statements about the patient made by a family member when those statements relate to the patient’s treatment.

In Ewing v. Goldstein, the court recognized that threats or statements conveyed by a family member about what the patient has said or threatened can be treated as part of the patient’s communications for the purpose of the physician-patient relationship. This keeps the information confidential and allows the clinician to use it to plan and provide appropriate treatment, safety measures, and interventions.

So the reason this option is correct is that these family-reported threats are treated as patient communications precisely to facilitate and further the patient’s treatment. The other options don’t capture why the confidentiality rule applies here; they refer to liability, personal gain, or public safety actions, which are separate issues and not the purpose of treating these statements as patient communications within the therapeutic relationship.