![]() Mental health professionals performing an evaluation and developing a treatment plan may be at risk for malpractice litigation when reasonable care is not exercised to prevent harm to a third party. There are also reporting considerations regarding self-injury and abortion. Counselors should be mindful of obligations to warn and protect against clients’ threats of danger to identifiable or foreseeable victims of (a) HIV/AIDS, (b) child abuse or neglect, (c) incest, and (d) battery. The duty to warn and protect may arise in contexts other than threat of injury or homicide of identifiable victims. Application in the Context of Other Therapeutic Issues Although many cases have issued rulings consistent with Tarasoff, others have resulted in rulings that allow a cause of action to a “foreseeable” victim who may or may not have been identifiable by a therapist. Different interpretations in various jurisdictions can result in apparent inconsistencies. In deciding whether duty to protect is present under the law, judges generally consider whether (a) there was a special relationship and the client communicated an intended threat directly to the therapist, (b) harmful action (such as severe injury, death, or psychological harm) was foreseeable and imminent, and (c) the victim was identifiable. The duty to protect continues, however, to be open for interpretation throughout the United States. The duty to warn and protect has been upheld in other states and has become the standard of practice for mental health professionals. The court held that danger to the public supercedes the protective privilege of a therapeutic relationship. Moreover, the California Supreme Court extended therapists’ responsibility to take reasonable steps necessary to protect intended victims, thereby establishing duty to protect in the 1976 rehearing of the Tarasoff case. In overruling the lower court in 1974, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that established a duty for therapists to warn potential third-party victims. The defendants won in the lower court, but the case was appealed and the original ruling was overturned. Tarasoff of the imminent danger posed by Mr. Tarasoff’s parents filed wrongful death suits against the university as well as the psychologist and the psychiatrist because of their negligence to warn Ms. Tarasoff’s home, shot her with a pellet gun as she ran from the house, and ultimately killed her with a kitchen knife. Poddar terminated therapy and eventually went to Ms. Tarasoff and he was subsequently released. Poddar, but he assured them he would not harm Ms. ![]() The psychologist also advised the campus police of his concerns. The psychologist, along with a psychiatrist, unsuccessfully attempted to have Mr. During therapy, the psychologist working with Mr. Poddar became distraught and sought counseling at the university student counseling center. Tatiana Tarasoff was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar, a student from India enrolled at the University of California. ![]() The legal precedent for establishing a duty to warn and a duty to protect was set in the wrongful death case of Tarasoff v. The American Psychological Association’s and the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics recognize exceptions and note that counselors are not required to maintain confidentiality when clients pose a threat or risk to identifiable others. An exception exists, for example, when a client threatens to harm him- or herself or others. Privileged communication is not available in all states and it is not absolute. The client, rather than the counselor, owns this legal privilege and generally, only the client has the right to release information from the relationship. Privileged communication is a legal doctrine (also known as therapist-patient privilege) that declares client-counselor therapeutic communications are to be kept private by the counselor. Confidentiality is a demonstration of respect bestowed on the client by the counselor wherein information between the two will not be divulged by the counselor. The understanding of a counselor’s duty to warn begins with acknowledgment of the difference between the ethical responsibility of confidentiality and the legal term of privileged communication. The duty to protect is a counselor’s duty to reveal confidential client information in the event that the counselor has reason to believe that a third party may be harmed. The duty to warn refers to a counselor’s obligation to warn identifiable victims.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |