Duty To Warn Analysis

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

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

Professional counselors and their staff are exposed to sensitive client information and records. The helpful receptionist and whose privilege videos, show how to apply both the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (ACA Code of Ethics) and state board counseling laws to common ethical scenarios. The content explores aspects designed to call attention to favorable and unfavorable skills and techniques in handling such matters. These two videos demonstrate the limitations of confidentiality and privileged information. As a professional counselor one is expected to uphold the principles of confidentiality and privilege according to the ACA Code of Ethics and state laws. One may conclude that the helpful receptionist video shows clear violations of confidentiality. While the whose privilege video indicates the significance of insuring that counselors comprehend state laws and ethics codes pertaining to confidentiality and privilege. Furthermore, counseling professionals are held accountable for violating ethics codes and state laws as well as training staff on informed consent.

The first ethical issue that counselors have to worry about in counseling children is to be a competent counselor. It includes that the counselor must be familiar with child and adolescent development. Also, in order to be competent in counseling children, a counselor must frequently participate in trainings, specialized education, and supervised practice (Henderson & Thompson, 2011). Another ethical issue in counseling minors is privacy and confidentiality. According to the American Counseling Association (ACA) (2014) Code of Ethics, when counseling minors a counselors protect the confidentiality of information received (ACA, 2014, B.5.a). Counselors also have responsibilities with the child’s parents such as inform parents about the role of counselors and the confidential nature of the counseling relationship (ACA, 2014, B.5.b). When a counselors needs to release confidential information, he needs to seek permission from the child’s parents, legal guardians, or the appropriate third party in order to disclose the information (ACA, 2014, B.5.c). According to Henderson and Thompson (2011), children have to have their parents’ consent to see a

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.

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).

Video presentation: The video clip was quite interesting I found it to be very educational as to the legal obligations of therapists in the mental health field. There were issues that were brought up that were quite important, such as therapists need to understand confidentiality, privileged information, and a therapists responsibility related to reporting suspected child abuse, elder abuse, and/or suicidal ideations, and possibly the most important of them all is a therapists duty to warn. The first case they were

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

The ACA Code of Ethics states, “when counselors are faced with ethical dilemmas that are difficult to resolve, they are expected to engage in a carefully considered ethical decision-making process,” (ACA, 2014, p. 3). Throughout these three case studies, I will use the seven-step ethical decision-making model to address the important professional issues, relevant ethical codes, and legal standards (Forester-Miller & Davis, 1996). By applying the steps to each case I will share how I came to my resolutions.

If a child/pupil discloses information to an adult in school that is of a serious nature, then the child should be made aware that the information given will need to be shared to protect them. If the school believes a child/pupil is at risk of serious harm then the confidential information will need to be shared with external professionals, such as police, social services, and other

Ethical Standards in (A.2) regarding confidentiality. School counselors must inform students of the rules and, procedures of what could be disclosed and not disclosed unless Hector’s girlfriend gives consent in notifying her parents of her

There will be many scenarios that can challenge a counselor. However, when there are specific cases that involve harm to the clients’ person or another a counselor must follow the processes outlined in the bylaws of the American School Counselor Association. These outlined processes serve two important purposes, the purpose of protecting the client and the purpose of protecting the counselor. This paper will answer questions in response to the scenario of Angela.

In this report is a fully reasoned quantification of, our client, Mr. Steven Pearson’s personal injury claim against Mr. Fred Prendergast.

This risk is of any type such as, environmental, human, etc. Some kinds of risk which can hamper this project are taken into consideration as follows:

Exception to Autonomy – If a counselor becomes aware that an individual is planning on infringing on the rights of others, by causing harm or depriving them of their autonomy, the counselor is held to the “Duty to Warn” and must