Analysis of the Psychology's Duty to Warn Essay

In the case of Ricter v. Singlett Memorial Hospital Dr. Larry Posten had the duty to warn the third party, Emily’s parents, that their daughter was in danger. Davis Copitt was the patient of Dr. Posten, and he mentioned that he was planning to kill his classmate Emily Ricter. Dr. Posten requested that the campus police would detain Copitt, the police decided that Copitt was sane and released him from detention. The police and the psychologists from the university failed to warn Emily Ricter and her family of potential harm. A California law states “a psychotherapist may incur a duty to warn and protect a “reasonably identifiable” victim when a patient “has communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence”

The responsibility to protect and obligation to warn: Duty to protect is the moral liability of the counselor to protect the client from self-harm. Whereas, the requirement to inform is a salutation where the advocate has a legal obligation to warn third parties of predictable danger caused

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

If any professional becomes concerned that a child might be at risk of abuse, be it physical, sexual, emotional or neglect, it is their legal duty to pass on such concerns to the appropriate professionals who can assess if and what action should be taken. In cases where it will not put the child at greater risk or danger, the parents / carers of the child will be informed that such action has been taken.

The duty to warn and protect is the result of the Supreme Court case Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. (Gehring 1982) In this case the courts decided that a psychotherapist having knowledge of the

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).

This paper is a response to a video discussing the issues of confidentiality, privilege, reporting, and duty to warn. This paper looks at these issues and their explanations in the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics as well as the Georgia State Board of Professional Counselor’s ethical guidelines and provides a commentary on the laws. It was found that these issues are not always black and white, but there is some debate on these issues. Confidentiality is both an ethical and a legal responsibility yet there are often times when the ethical demands clash with the legal demands. This paper explores some of those crashes and explains what I have learned from the video and the professional and stage guidelines concerning confidentiality and its implications and how I will apply what I have learned into future practice.

The ethical dilemma I wish to explore is The Duty to Warn. This refers to the duty of a counselor, therapist to breach one of the most important bonds between a client and a therapist; the law of confidentiality. The therapist has the right to break confidentiality without the fear of being brought up for legal action. If the therapist believes that the client poses a danger, or is a threat to himself, someone else, or society as a whole, the therapist must decide how serious of a threat the client may be, then if he decides it’s a serious issue, he must notify the person in danger, which would e the third party, or the police, or other people who may be in the

This article discussion the duty to warn and protect in the state of Texas. Texas is one state that rejected the national standard set by Tarasoff. This article describes the difference between the two cases Tarasoff v. Regents and Thapar v. Zezulka in the duty to warn. The authors describe the case Tarasoff v. Regents case as what the state of California established their precedent for mental health professional regarding the duty to warn. In the state of California mental health professional have obligation to warn and protect third parties when a client reveals an intent to harm (Barbee, Ekleberry, and Villalobos, 2007; Corey, Corey, & Callanan., 2007). Whereas, in the state of Texas mental health professional do not have a duty to warn

Great post for this week you did a really good job of defining “duty to warn” and “duty to protect” in your own words, which made it a lot easier to understand. The Duty to warn give individuals such as therapist the responsibility to warn or inform the third party or authorities if a client poses a threat to himself or another individual. The “duty to warn” is one of the few instances where client confidentiality can be breached.

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

“Threlkel court, the Safer v. Estate of Pack court found that the physician’s duty to warn may not be satisfied in all cases by informing the patient of the risk to his relatives.” However, the court believes

The supervisor is ultimately liable for the welfare of the supervisee’s clients. The supervisee is expected to discuss with the supervisor the counseling process and individual concerns of each client. Inform supervisor immediately of any of the following incidents: restraint, violence to themselves or others, suicidal thoughts, breach of appropriate boundaries, violations of confidentiality and/or clients rights, any disclosure of abuse or neglect. The supervisor must be available by phone, web-camera, or in person to answer clinical questions that correspond directly to the clients’

In Texas, the therapist owes no duty to warn individuals who are under possible threat, but I strongly believe that there are terrible consequences if under the Texas Constitutions denies the duty to warn. In my personal opinion, the Tarasoff’s Law should be applied to all states because if a patient clearly presents behavioral intentions to hurt an individual, the therapist must inform the possible victim and the law enforcement. I believe that when an individual seeks for help, the therapist might detect signs of threat against others and like the Tarasoff’s case or the Peck case, the individuals states his intentions to damage a person, property or even to third party individuals. The therapist must be allow to “break the patient-client

In 2002 only ten states recognized a constitutionally based psychotherapists-patient privilege for psychotherapeutic communications, and the decisions that were made are over 20 years old (Hugaboom, 2002). The decisions of a particular case are clear, if the courts need for the psychiatrist to devote information it