As part of a profession under social service, it is important to be aware of the clauses falling under confidentiality. Kagle & Kopels (1993) explain that following the careful analysis of the Tarasoff case, the issue of confidentiality and liability has once again being brought into the limelight. What is the Tarasoff case? The celebrated case is about Tatiana Tarasoff and Prosenjit Poddar. The two started dating, but Poddar became too invested in the relationship that he became withdrawn after Tarasoff rejected him. After the rejection, Poddar consulted a therapist. During the sessions, Poddar showed aggressive and violent tendencies where he often described fantasies of hurting women. He soon killed Tarasoff. The event led to Tarasoff’s parents filling a lawsuit against the police and the health service because they saw the event coming but did not do anything for it to be stopped.
What does the case imply? First, is a moral dilemma on the part of the therapist of whether he or she will reveal confidential information about his or her patient? The therapy sessions are always considered confidential because the client must feel that he can reveal anything to the therapist without fear of being judged or reprimanded. Confidentiality and the breach of confidentiality are two complex issues that continue to haunt the social services such as counseling. As a practitioner, therapists are bounded by regulations that they must abide. But in reality social workers are oftentimes held accountable for their client’s tendencies that it influences their hold on confidentiality. Similar to the case of Tarasoff, the parents consider the therapist accountable for the death of their daughter (Kipnis, 2003).
The decreasing practice of confidentiality affects the client-therapist relationship, because both parties became more cautious on the information they share during sessions. The client may feel too restricted and may choose the information he or she will share in sessions because he or she fears that it may use against him or her in the future. Practitioners on the other hand, became more careful of their accountability to future events that they may have a tendency to sacrifice the confidentiality of the information shared by their clients. The mental health professionals are being placed in a predicament where they must weigh out the confidentiality of their client and at the same time the safety of a third party involved. In the case of Tarasoff, it is true that if the therapist said something the death could have been prevented, but it is important to note that the therapist also considered the practice of the profession.
Under the regulations in the practice, informed consent and refusal also have their own clauses. Informed consent is important because it ensures that no right is being violated in the process. Although some degree of deception is being permitted, the knowledge of the client is important because it upholds the person’s right to choose. It also protects the client from a harmful situation that may occur during the sessions or experiments. The client is also given the opportunity to refuse because the professions respect the will of the person. The profession is complex because there are a lot of considerations to be mindful . The main purpose of counseling sessions is to guide people and to dictate anything on the client. The practice is also bounded by regulations to ensure the welfare of both the professional and client.
References:
Kagle and Kopels (1993). Confidentiality after Tarasoff. Health and Social Work , Vol. 19, No. 3
Kipnis K (2003). In defense of total confidentiality. Virtual Mentor. October 2003, Volume 5, Number 10.
