Summary
Counselors in the United States face numerous ethical and legal challenges when dealing with cases where a client may be dangerous to others. Understanding how to resolve such situations peacefully is a critical skill for practitioners.
Problem Identification
As Joseph’s counselor in Pennsylvania, it is my duty to protect my client’s confidential information while also keeping the safety of others in mind. This notion puts me in a conflicting situation if Joseph expresses his intention to harm or kill Theresa. My decision lies between breaking the patient’s trust and preventing violence.
Ethical Codes and State Laws
There are limitations to confidentiality imprinted in the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics, which include the exception for cases where foreseeable harm can be prevented through information disclosure (International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors, 2017). Another ethical code that affects this case is the necessity to uphold professional responsibility, which requires one to remain within the boundaries of one’s expertise (American Counseling Association, 2014). In Pennsylvania, there is a duty to warn but not to protect, which requires assessing the presented factors regarding the immediate danger to a specified individual posed by a psychiatrist’s client (Watson, 2005).
Nature and Dimensions of the Dilemma
The principle of beneficence plays a critical role in this dilemma, as it requires a counselor to be proactive in their decision-making processes (Forester-Miller & Davis, 2016). Non-maleficence is a second principle vital for this case since a counselor is bound to avoid activities that can harm others (Forester-Miller & Davis, 2016). A specialist fails to ‘not harm’ by actively discussing, yet not preventing, the analyzed case from occurring.
Potential Courses of Action
One way to settle the issue is to report Joseph’s threat to the authorities. His previous behavior indicates that he poses a danger to his ex-partner, which makes it reasonable to conclude that additional precautions are necessary. A counselor may choose to remain online with Joseph and Teresa to provide them with support throughout their potentially heated conversations. This approach alleviates client tension, although it does little to ensure their safety.
Diversity and Inclusion Considerations
A counselor is bound to interpret data using culturally appropriate tools that are free of bias since discrimination can affect one’s judgment (American School Counseling Association, 2022). Value conflicts may arise from the client’s perspective, as a counselor strives to achieve a personal goal of legal protection from the client’s point of view. As a counselor, I can address the issues by learning the historical and social paths of oppression of underrepresented populations and integrating practices deemed culturally sensitive by credible organizations into my workflow. Cultural differences can make counselors’ statements and communication attempts appear insensitive to others, leading to failures to interact with clients or their relatives.
Consequences
As a result of the first solution, police officers may visit Joseph and prevent the crime from occurring. The second solution may allow a counselor to intervene in the conflict and call for help only if necessary, although it might be too late for Teresa.
Selected Course of Action
The first trajectory of activities satisfies the need for a counselor to avoid harm to others through the information one possesses. Moreover, this approach also follows legal and ethical conditions from exposure to such knowledge.
Implementation
The anticipated outcome is a successful prevention of harm inflicted by Joseph. The consequences of the decided course of action can be detrimental for the client, depending on his interactions with law enforcement, although Teresa’s life can be saved.
References
American Counseling Association. 2014 ACA code of ethics. Web.
American School Counseling Association. (2022). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors. Web.
Forester-Miller, H., & Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s guide to ethical decision making. (Rev. ed.). Web.
International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors. (2017). International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors code of ethics. Web.
Watson, C. (2005). The duty to warn/protect doctrine and its application in Pennsylvania. Jefferson Journal of Psychiatry, 19(1), 13-18. Web.