Duty to Warn
Jessica Hall
PSYCH/545
09/4/2011
Dr. P.

Duty to Warn
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 only unethical standard would be to know that the client will pose a threat to someone, and do nothing, or do not report it, and someone ends up hurt, or worse, dead. 6. Review relevant legal standards.
As I stated in the beginning, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1976. The therapist has a right to inform a 3rd part if their client proves to be a threat to them. Another case, in which the court included going over clients past records or files to see if any patterns or history of violence is present, is the case of Jablonski by Pahls v. United States in 1983. Mr. Jablonski was dating Ms. Kimball, and he threatened to kill her and her mother. After he continued to threaten her mother, Ms. Kimball took him to the Loma Linda VA Hospital, the doctor did a risk assessment, but he failed to look at his past records, which would have let him know that Mr. Jablonski had a violent past. The doctor determined he was not a threat, but told Ms. Kimball to be careful, when he was released, he killed her. 7. Review the relevant research and theory.
Research does not have to be done to know that a person’s safety comes first. Any client, that a therapist feels may be in harm’s way, or may present harm to someone else, must