Duty to Warn

482 Words2 Pages
In the field of psychology ethical dilemmas have been on the rise for mental health professionals when it comes to HIV-positive clients that have not disclosed their HIV status to their sex partner, and the duty to warn principle. When hearing the duty to warn most people think of the duty to protect principle. These two principles are completely different when it comes to psychologist. The duty to warn principle refers to the responsibility of a counselor to inform authorities or third parties if a client is a harmful threat to an identifiable individual. According to Pabian, Y. L., Welfel, E. R., & Beebe, R. (2007) this case law requires the psychologist to make a good faith effort to contact the identified person who the client intends to harm or notify law enforcement. While on the other hand when dealing with the duty to protect the psychologist is obligated by law to take actions to protect a threatened third party, but they also have other options. When observing the duty to warn principle one of the most difficult things thus far in some of these situations is when to draw the line between the Duty to Warn principle and confidentiality. This particular principle gives counselors the right to breach confidentiality if their client has the potential of being harmful to an identifiable individual. The duty to warn principle was established in response to the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. In the Tarasoff case According to Demarco, M., & Zoline,S.S(2004) there has been several investigations over the past decade that debated the applicability of the Tarasoff doctrine (1976) to ethical dilemmas involving HIV infected individuals. Throughout the years the duty to warn principle has been seen as both helpful and harmful. Because this has become such a controversial issue the law and the particular duties that it consist of varies
Open Document