Introduction
Confidentiality is a basic ethical principle across many disciplines. An ethical dilemma usually arises when the principle of confidentiality is likely to be in conflict with other ethical principles. In the healthcare setting, the principle of confidentiality is breached when a doctor or nurse reveals information of patient to a third party. In counselling or therapeutic sessions, confidentiality is breached when a counsellor reveals information of a client to a third party. The Tarasoff v. Regents was a case that occurred in the University of California in 1976 (Cohen, 1978). The case held that Dr Lawrence Moore was responsible for the death of Tatiana Tarasoff for failing in his duty to warn Tarasoff of an impending harm occasioned by the mental condition of his client.
In modern counselling, therapists face a number of ethical dilemmas regarding the principle of confidentiality. These issues revolve around information sharing. Clients always want to be sure that the information they reveal to counsellors is safe. Such information should be held in strict confidence. Failure to uphold the privacy of information may lead prevent clients from revealing every information that may be crucial in the therapeutic process. In the case of Tarasoff v. Regents, Dr Moore failed in his responsibility to warn the victim about the danger that faced following the decision by the client to kill her (Cohen, 1978). Although it was ethically correct for the therapist to safeguard the client’s information, he failed on the basis of the law under the duty to warn. This legal concept demands that a party can be held responsible for the injuries or harm caused on another party if they fail to warn the victim of hazard despite having an opportunity to do so.
Duty to warn binds all practitioners to take responsibility and provide sufficient warning to individuals that may be victims of attack by other individuals. In addition, Dr Moore was bound by the duty to protect concept which required him to protect a third party from foreseeable harm arising from information shared to him by the villain. The decision by the court was in the best interest for the public because in many instances, counsellors find themselves in an awkward situation when clients reveal information that may likely endanger the lives of other people. If the ethical principle of confidentiality holds, it means that the access to such critical information may not be possible and the intended harm can be effected. In essence, the legal obligation which binds counsellors to share client information in times of danger buttresses the right to life and lends credence to any endeavour that the counsellor may have towards rescuing the life of a third party.
The ‘duty to warn’ and the ‘duty to protect’ concepts place emphasis on the safety of the third party and cushions them from an impending danger. These concepts fail to observe the ethical codes that underscore the centrality of client confidentiality. It is against this background that the court determined the ‘protective privilege of the client ends where the public peril begins’. This argument holds because any behaviour by an individual which poses harm to the greater good of the society is considered unethical (Bond, 2015). A behaviour is morally right and ethically sound if it promotes the good of the society. In this regard, the solution to the duty to protect and the duty to warn should exist within the legal context to offer protection of individuals against impending harm.
In light of the above case, it is indubitable that the duty to protect and the duty to warn are compelling legal codes that override any ethical principle at the onset of public peril. To this extent, the legal issues in counselling are paramount. It implies that application of ethical values and principles can be done to the extent that the said values are consistent with legal demands.
References
Bond, T. (2015). Standards and ethics for counselling in action. Sage. Print.
Cohen, R. N. (1978). Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California: The Duty to Warn:
Common Law & Statutory Problems for California Psychotherapists. Cal. WL Rev., 14, 153.
