Ethical Vignette Paper
This paper presents a summary of the Counseling in Therapy video. In the video the actors discuss real life cases where the Supreme Court Judge had to rule on topics such as: exceptions to confidentiality, privilege, reporting, and the duty to warn. This writer will also discuss her finding s about the statures and laws as they pertain to North Carolina and give a summary of each. Finally the writer will discuss her reflection and how she could put these to action in her counseling career.
The video presentation was very interesting. It allowed actors to discuss real cases to give a better understanding ...view middle of the document...
The second case was dealing with exceptions to confidentiality. The discussion was about a case where an officer responded to a domestic dispute call. When she arrived on the scene, there was a woman running from the house and a male following her with a knife in his hand. The officer noted that he was about to catch up with the lady so she fired and killed the man so that he would not harm the lady. After, she was by protocol placed on leave, and she sought services from a mental health professional. The victim’s mother filed a civil suit not sure if the police investigation produced a knife they were requesting to see the records from the mental health professional in hopes to find out the truth. The office refused and instructed her counselor to also refuse to release the records that were subpoenaed stating that it was a breach of her confidentiality. The judge told her that if she did not turn over the records her would instruct the jury to infer that there was no knife and rule in favor of the mother. In this case the mother was awarded $450,000 due to her refusing to do as instructed. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the psychotherapist-client relationship is a privilege and the notes should not be disclosed.
The next case was about a mental health therapist duty to warn a potential victim about a client’s threat to harm. In this case the male and female had met at a social event and begin to hang out after that and had become friends. The male became quite attached to the female and after an event they kissed he assumed that they were dating. She explained that she did not feel that way about him and that they were just friends. He became very down and eventually begin to see a therapist on campus. Meanwhile she was out of town. He disclosed to his therapist that he was going to harm her when she returned home. The therapist called the police and had him picked up so that he could be evaluated. He was released on the account that he seemed fine and had not posed a danger to himself. When the young lady returned home he killed her. He did a little time in California but was deported to India. The family is suing because they felt as though it was the therapists to warn the woman of a potential threat regardless of if it happened or not. The Supreme Court ruled that mental health professionals do not possess a special skill that will allow them to determine if there is going to be dangerous and therefore should not be burdened with the duty to warn and protect.
In North Carolina it is noted that confidentiality is a right to all clients under the three principles of beneficence, autonomy, and fidelity. NC state law also provides the stature NCGS § 8-53.8...