Duty to Warn Essays

One of the most important concepts in the field of social work and psychology is known as the duty to warn and duty to protect. Duty to warn mandates mental health professionals to break client confidentiality when they believe their client may harm. The duty to warn became a law in 1974 when the California Supreme Court ruled that mental health professionals must have the duty to protect a victim if the therapist believes that not warning them would protect them, the therapist must notify the police or other authorities. There is a debate around duty to warn; many therapists feel that some threats may not be credible. For example, a patient telling his therapist that they could just kill their mother for grounding them from all their electronics

Regarding step 4, while there are no laws which pertain to this particular case as it does not involve a sexual relationship, but there are regulations and professional standards one must adhere to. Step 4 and step 5 are closely related and are the crux of this ethical dilemma. Ethics codes of all major mental health associations mandate that therapists/supervisors

I selected the article “Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas” for review, as it applies to the state in which I reside. The article cites Texas Health and Safety Codes, based on a 1999 Texas Supreme Court ruling that states counselors do not have a duty to warn or protect. Having a duty to warn and protect is defined as protecting clients or others from perceived harm (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014). An example would be that a client tells their counselor in a confidential session that he is considering stabbing his ex-girlfriend. The duty to warn would mean the counselor should notify authorities and the ex-girlfriend thus breaking confidentiality. The duty to protect would be to admit client to a facility for the client to be assessed for a propensity for violence towards the ex-girlfriend. This became important after a 1969 incident where a counselor, had a client expressed harm towards a girl and the counselor contacted the authorities, yet never contacted the girl, who was subsequently killed by the client a few months later, known as the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014).

Ethical dilemmas happen frequently in the social work and how one handles them could be the difference on how a clinician keeps their license or not. The problem is there is no way to prepare a person from knowing what situations will arise. Scenarios arise all the time and new ways to handle them is constantly changing. The ethical dilemma can happen anywhere and at any time with anyone, it could be a client, co-worker, and even supervisors. No social worker is safe from them. One however can practice with scenarios and be aware of personal biases. A social worker needs to evaluate each dilemma with the different frameworks and principals to determine which one applies best, anticipate what possible outcomes could happen, and what interventions a social worker would implement.

Therapists get legally allowed to warn others of potential dangers. This article should expound on how this can be done, and when the need should be identified by clinician. An ethical decision has to be made by an individual when they decide to exercise their duty to warn. Duty to warn allows the counselors, and psychological therapists to breach confidentiality when a person endangers life of another. The clinical therapists cannot be prosecuted for warning a third party of imminent danger or if they unreasonably suspect the patient might harm themselves. Initially, the therapist had no right to disclose the content of their discussions to another party until Tarasoff got killed.

The state of North Carolin, which I reside in at the present does not require the "duty to warn", for the clinician/client professional relationship. “It is noted that the clinician, may do so in the best interest of the client having permission to warn. Also, the clinician shall provide the ‘best medical practice’ standards when involved in a therapist/ client professional relationship ethically or legally in light of a dilemma “(Cape Fear Psychological, 2014). The clinician must take precautions from an ethical and legal standpoint but, with regards for the safety of the client and/or any individual affected in serious harm or danger.

Regardless of the State in which they are operating, mental health counselors are held to strict guidelines and laws that aim to keep the therapist-client relationship ethical and confidential. In the video, “Legal and Ethical Issues for Mental Health Professionals, Vol 1: Confidentiality, Privilege, Reporting, and Duty to Warn,” a conversation is directed by a judge on the rules and exceptions of these four topics, and how they relate to the therapist-client relationship. Within the video, three separate cases are reviewed, including the ruling decisions that were made by the state courts in their charge. This paper will seek to outline the laws that pertain to confidentiality, duty to warn, mandatory reporting, and privilege in the state

The ACA Code of Ethics "countertransference" will convey damage to the clients in the event that she kept counseling (Counseling, 2013). Counselors might briefly end counseling when it endangers their callings, and look for the help that is required. Eloise clients are being hurt on the off chance that she keeps on counseling while in this emotional state. Eloise has confined to her colleague about this matter, which places Peter in the position of making an expert call of Eloise disability to keep on counseling her clients at this given time. On the off chance that she doesn't choose to make the step in looking for help, Peter has no other choice, however, but to report her. There is some hidden threats to both the client and counselor, if Eloise problem is not resolved. For this situation Eloise is exchanging her own particular emotions onto a client, taking a huge risk on

A counselor who receives information confirming that a client has a disease commonly known to be both communicable and fatal is justified in disclosing information to an identifiable third party, who by his or her relationship with the client is at a high risk of contracting the disease. Prior to making a disclosure the counselor should ascertain that the client has not already informed the third party about his or her disease and that the client is not intending to inform the third party in the immediate future. (ACA, B.1.d)

The CRSS will disclose to the client that if they are to harm another or themselves they will have to break confidentiality. In the ACA code of ethics informed consent is given to the client and respecting confidentiality is another ethical guideline (Illinois Certification Board, Inc., 2017). The counselor will not disclose any information about the client to anyone only when consent is given from the client that they want to tell others about this information. Confidentiality has some limitations in the ACA just like CRSS the client’s confidentiality will be breached if the client makes claims about wanting to harm themselves, harm others or if they’re doing something illegal under the state. It’s the counselor’s duty to report this to their supervisor and they must let the client know that their confidentiality is no longer kept private due to these exceptions since these are instances that are very crucial to a client/ client’s peer’s health that needs to be reported on (ACA,

The New Jersey court observed the duty to warn as an applicable theory under New Jersey law. This is in spite of the fact that therapists cannot be perfect in their predictions, therapists have the capability to consider the relationships of the parties. The therapists should break confidentiality for the greater welfare of the community, especially in the case of imminent danger. The Tarasoff principle applies to this

Today, if a therapist believes that a client will commit harm, the practitioner must make a reasonable interceptive effort, while continuing to maintain reasonable patient privacy.

The Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case on confidentiality are legal and ethics-related implications derived from the case where the psychologist failed to inform the victim or the parents of the victim of death threats, thus failing to carry out the duty to protect or warn. Three general categories of states include: those that mandate some duty to warn or protect (and that often specify whether law enforcement, the victim, or a combination should be “warned”); those that allow therapists to warn by protecting them from liability for breach of confidentiality if they do so, but do not require them to issue a warning; and those that offer no statutory or case law guidance (Johnson, Persad & Sisti, 2014).

Client confidentiality is a fundamental part of therapeutic psychology's code of ethics. These psychologists understand that clients must first feel safe to talk about anything they want before they feel comfortable talking about very personal and revealing information. Psychologists strive to create safe and respectful environments that encourage clients to speak without fear of their private information ever leaving the room. In the world of psychology, client privacy goes hand in hand with job security and salaries.

On the other hand, not all outside relationships with a psychologist will create a considerable conflict of interest in court-ordered therapy. For instance, if you attend a large university that your therapist also happens to attend, this may be potentially safe, though it can potentially affect your confidentially, or make you feel very uncomfortable when you meet your psychologist in a public setting. The psychologist is still held by confidentiality, and cannot reveal that you are his or her client. Yet, a client can violate any boundaries without any scolding.