Breach of Confidentiality The Legal Implications Essay Example For Students

Breach of Confidentiality: The Legal Implications Essay When You Are Seeking TherapyAbnormal Psychology 204 November 2, 1996Breach of Confidentiality: The legal Implications when You are seeking Therapy I. The need for confidentiality in therapy A. Establish trust B. A patients billof rights Thesis: The duty to warn has created an ethical dilemma forpsychological professionals. II. Therapists face a moral problem B. Requirement by law to breach confidentiality C. Exceptions for breachingconfidentiality D. Prediction of violence E. Impact on client I. The futureoutlook for therapy A. Conflicting views between the legal and psychologicalprofessionsPeople are afraid to admit to themselves and others that they need to help toresolve their psychological problems. This is due to the social stigma whichsociety attaches to people, when they seek assistance from a mental healthprofessional. Consequently it is very difficult for any person to establish atrusting relationship with their therapist, because they fear, that thetherapist might reveal their most personal information and emotions to others. Health professionals therefore created the patients bill of rights to installconfidence between clients and therapists. The patient has a right to everyconsideration of privacy concerning his own medical care program. Casediscussion, consultation, examination, and treatment are confidential and shouldbe conducted discreetly. Those not directly involved in his care must have thepermission of the patient to be present. The patient has the right to expectthat all communications and records pertaining to his care should be treated asconfidential. ( Edge, 63 ) This bill of rights enables clients to disclose allpersonal information without fears. To fully confide in the therapist isessential to the success of the therapy. On the other hand, the therapist islegally obliged to breach this trust when necessary. The duty to warn hascreated an ethical dilemma for psychological professionals. The duty to warn isbased on a court ruling in 1974. Tatiana Tarasoff was killed by Prosenjit Poddar. Prior to the killing Poddar had told his therapist that he would kill Tatianaupon her return from Brazil. The psychologist tried to have Poddar committed,but since the psychiatrist overseeing this case failed to take action, Poddarwas never committed nor was Tarasoff warned about Poddars intentions to kill her. This failure resulted in Tatianas death. The Supreme Court therefore ruled thatthe psychologist had a duty to warn people which could possibly become harmed (Bourne, 195-196 ). This policy, to warn endangered people, insures thattherapists must breach there confidentiality for specific reasons only. Thesefew exceptions are:Harm Principle: When the practitioner can foresee a danger to an individual who is outside the patient/provider relationship, potentially caused by the patient, the harm principle provides the rationale for breaching confidentiality to warn the vulnerable individua ( Edge, 63 ). When the client is a potential danger to himself or herself ( Bourne,487 ). If the client is a criminal defendant and uses insanity as a defense ( Bourne, 487 ) If the client is underage and the therapist believes that he or she is the victim of a crime (such as child abuse) ( Bourne, 487 ). The breach for a clients insanity defense would have been helpful in deciding afamous court case in 1843: the McNaghtens case. McNaghten used the insanitydefense, when he was faced with the charge of killing Sir Robert Peeles privatesecretary. A jury had to decide, if he was conscious of the act or if he wastemporary insane ( McCarty, 299-300 ). The jury clearly didnt have theprofessional training to make a competent decision. How did they establish ifMcNaghten knew right from wrong at the time of the crime? Therefore they wereincompetent when deciding that he, indeed, was temporarily insane. Now thesedeterminations are made by qualified mental health professionals. Neverthelessother obstacles are still being encountered. In the beginning the law providesclear guidelines when to breach confidentiality. The Harm Principle is one ofthe guidelines. But how can a therapist absolutely determine, that a clientpresents harm to another individual? To say that someone is dangerous is topredic t future behavior. The rarer an event, the harder it is to predictaccurately. Hence if dangerousness is defined as homicide or suicide, both ofwhich are rare events, the prediction of dangerousness will inevitably involvemany unjustified commitments as well as justified ones ( Alloy, 570 ). Thetherapist must predict the capacity for violence in the client. There are noguidelines to establish such a diagnose. All that is mandated by the opinionis that the therapist exercise that reasonable degree of skill, knowledge, andcare ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of their particularprofession under similar circumstances. Within the broad range of reasonablepractice and treatment in which professional opinion and judgment may differ,the therapist is free to exercise his or her own best judgment withoutliability; proof aided by hindsight, that he or she judged wrongly isinsufficient to establish negligence ( Annas, 198 ). Magnesium Essay PaperMental health practitioners however focus on the well-being of the individual. To protect and serve the general population as commanded by the courts createdan ethical dilemma for psychological professionals. The courts force them to actcontradicting to their professional beliefs and ethics. Therapists reason thatwhen they must serve the public they cannot successfully treat their clients. Orhow can they treat an individual at all, if the person wont consider enteringtherapy do to the possibly grim consequences ? Highly advanced communicationdevises erode our personal privacy more every day. Now the court system seems tofollow this trend. Therapists are trying to fight these developments andquestion the true motives of the court system. More research has to be conductedto find better alternatives. Maybe this ethical dilemma can be resolved in thefuture, maybe more ethical dilemmas will surface. We are all individuals andshould be treated with our own individual interests in mind. Maybe we shouldindulge in more economic thinking, to fuse the well-being of the in dividual withthe well-being of the general population and thereby eliminating the ethicaldilemma. Economic theory can verify, that when individuals act in their own bestself-interest, the population as a whole will benefit from it, too. Thiseconomic principle also applies to psychology. ReferencesAlloy, L. B., Acocella, J., Bootzin, R. R. ( 1996 ) . Abnormal psychology . USA: McGraw-Hill . Annas, G. J. ( 1988 ) . Judging medicine . New Jersey:Humana Press . Bourne, L. E., Jr., Ekstrand, B. R. ( 1985 ) . Psychology: Itsprinciples and meaningsUSA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston . Edge, R. S., Groves, J. R. ( 1994 ) . Theethics of health care . USA: Delmar Publishing . McCarty, D. G. ( 1967 ) . Psychology and the law . New Jersey: Prentice-HallBreach of Confidentiality: The legal Implications when You are seeking Therapy I. The need for confidentiality in therapy A. Establish trust B. A patients billof rights Thesis: The duty to warn has created an ethical dilemma forpsychological professionals. II. Therapists face a moral problem B. Requirement by law to breach confidentiality C. Exceptions for breachingconfidentiality D. Prediction of violenceCategory: Science