Exploring & Understanding Implications: Explain how the media presented this week contributed to your understanding of confidentiality and the challenges to confidentiality..
A number of states have adopted “duty to warn” or “duty to protect” laws following the landmark court case, Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976). Similarly, regional laws and statutes regarding “duty to protect” parallel the implications from the Tarasoff case. Additionally, there are other mandated exceptions to maintaining student confidentiality such as reporting child or elder abuse or the reckless transmission of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases.
Most statutes protect mandatory reporters from liability claims, including those based on a breach of confidentiality. School counselors need to remain cognizant of their state or regional statutes related to confidentiality and “duty to warn.” They also should understand how these statutes apply to their own work. As you review the Tarasoff case and related readings, be mindful of the issue of vicarious liability, which extends “duty to warn” liability to a school counselor’s supervisor.
For this Assignment, explore ethical challenges related to issues of confidentiality. Review the Tarasoff media and consider the implications of the Tarasoff decision.
The Assignment:
Summarize your state case law and statutes related to the Tarasoff decision. If you are an international student or if Tarasoff does not apply in your state, summarize your region’s case law and statutes as they relate to “duty to warn” and/or “duty to protect.”
Explain how you might resolve “duty to warn” and/or “duty to protect” dilemmas in your state or region, noting relevant ethical codes and ethical decision-making models. Be specific, referencing specific case law and statutes.
Explain how the media presented this week contributed to your understanding of confidentiality and the challenges to confidentiality.