Confidentiality In The Psychologist’S Practice
Confidentiality is important in a clinical workplace environment because it protects not only the client but the counselor. Confidentiality is a valued part of psychology and psychologists recognize that for people to feel comfortable talking about private information, they need a safe place to talk about anything without fearing that their secrets will be exposed.
In a psychologist code of ethics privacy and confidentiality are one of the most important things to be remembered. The code of ethics is for the client’s welfare which requires that there are rational steps taken by an individual practicing psychology that will diminish and avoid unwarranted harm to clients and other individuals the psychologist may work with. The code of conduct establishes what actions are acceptable as well as deplorable. People who are not licensed by the state sometimes are not legally required to protect client confidentiality unless it is of their own will.
Although confidentiality is important it can also be broken due to certain circumstances. When signing a consent form and the confidentiality agreement, counselors have certain accountabilities toward their patients. Psychologists must respect clients and keep their communications classified. For instance, if there is suspected child abuse or neglect which will documented and reported immediately. Announcing that the individual will harm an identifiable individual or the society through an illegal act. Sometimes the psychologists reveal information to the guardian of the child in hopes of easing the parent or guardian that the child is doing fine. “Although most states specify that mental health professionals have a “duty to warn” or “duty to report” if a client or patient poses an imminent danger to him- or herself or others exception 6 is unique to the military context and provides a broader set of circumstances in which psychotherapist/patient privilege does not hold”.
Regarding the Tarasoff case rulings I agree with the cause that the counselor or psychologist must report to the authorities if the patient wants to harm others. “In 1969, a student at the University of California at Berkeley killed Tatiana Tarasoff after she repeatedly rejected his amorous advances. Tarasoff’s parents sued the university, Poddar's therapists, and the campus police for not alerting their daughter to the potential danger posed by a man who had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and declared dangerous to himself and to others”. A girl was brutally murdered because the police did not do a furrow investigation when it came to the girl safety. And instead of telling the officers who the girl was they kept the information to themselves thinking that it was not important not knowing that every little information matters when it is a life or death situation. In Mississippi when the client has told or informed the psychologist that they are thinking or might cause physical violence against a clearly identified or reasonably identifiable potential victim or victims, and then the psychologist may inform the threat only to the potential victim, a police officer, or the guardian of the potential victim.
I agree to this method because we have clearly seen that if the potential victim is not notified how can they protect themselves in certain situations. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the proceedings of the case ruling in the state of Texas. Because, a psychologist may release information only to their colleagues or to a law enforcement representative. Even though the psychologist may determine that there is a high possibility of impending physical harm by the patient to others or there is a possibility of an instant mental or emotional breakdown from the patient. In Texas the potential victim may likely go through stress or most likely be killed because the psychologist did not warn them beforehand. I do see that a psychologist might want to protect the client than someone they have not met which can cause a huge problem.
