Clients
The duty to warn not only puts these clients at risk of being denied treatment as mentioned, but it poses a threat to all clients; potential clients may deny themselves treatment for fear of a confidentiality breach and/or legal retribution. Since there are limits to confidentiality which clients are informed of, namely the duty to warn here, the most likely result is the discouragement of those that most need treatment (Spector, 2015). According to one study that was conducted 10 years after Tarasoff, the public majority (74%) who can be considered as potential clients, believed that “all information within the therapeutic relationship should be confidential without exception” (Miller & Thelen, 1986). This emphasis on confidentiality …show more content…
It allows the client to maintain autonomy between what they would normally share with others and what they share with their therapist in order to receive therapy. Instead, fear of a breach in confidentiality may foster client resistance which is “consistently associated with poorer therapy outcomes” (Norcross & Hill, 2002, p. 22). This kind of trust leads clients to rate their therapist’s care more favorably and even enhances the efficacy of treatment (Goold, 2002). Effective therapy is the result from clients who feel understood, trust the therapist, and believe the therapist can be of help (Wampold, 2011). Threatening confidentiality through the duty to warn can affect the effectiveness of treatment. Trust remains of great importance to clients and it is in the interest of psychologists and the public that it is …show more content…
This model may restrict clients from disclosing negative attributes that they fear are incriminating, much like --though admittedly not to the same severity-- an offender having open dialogue with a forensic psychologist, like in Thompson. If clients feel unable to communicate violent thoughts and actions and omit such knowledge from their therapist, this would make the duty to warn null. Alternatively, a client may not return should matter of such nature be disclosed in a session which would make it “impossible to work through the threat of violence” (Bersoff, 2014, p. 461). This does not give adequate help for individuals who may pose a threat to themselves and
The duty to warn not only puts these clients at risk of being denied treatment as mentioned, but it poses a threat to all clients; potential clients may deny themselves treatment for fear of a confidentiality breach and/or legal retribution. Since there are limits to confidentiality which clients are informed of, namely the duty to warn here, the most likely result is the discouragement of those that most need treatment (Spector, 2015). According to one study that was conducted 10 years after Tarasoff, the public majority (74%) who can be considered as potential clients, believed that “all information within the therapeutic relationship should be confidential without exception” (Miller & Thelen, 1986). This emphasis on confidentiality …show more content…
It allows the client to maintain autonomy between what they would normally share with others and what they share with their therapist in order to receive therapy. Instead, fear of a breach in confidentiality may foster client resistance which is “consistently associated with poorer therapy outcomes” (Norcross & Hill, 2002, p. 22). This kind of trust leads clients to rate their therapist’s care more favorably and even enhances the efficacy of treatment (Goold, 2002). Effective therapy is the result from clients who feel understood, trust the therapist, and believe the therapist can be of help (Wampold, 2011). Threatening confidentiality through the duty to warn can affect the effectiveness of treatment. Trust remains of great importance to clients and it is in the interest of psychologists and the public that it is …show more content…
This model may restrict clients from disclosing negative attributes that they fear are incriminating, much like --though admittedly not to the same severity-- an offender having open dialogue with a forensic psychologist, like in Thompson. If clients feel unable to communicate violent thoughts and actions and omit such knowledge from their therapist, this would make the duty to warn null. Alternatively, a client may not return should matter of such nature be disclosed in a session which would make it “impossible to work through the threat of violence” (Bersoff, 2014, p. 461). This does not give adequate help for individuals who may pose a threat to themselves and