Duty To Data Protection

The responsibility to protect and obligation to warn: Duty to protect is the moral liability of the counselor to protect the client from self-harm. Whereas, the requirement to inform is a salutation where the advocate has a legal obligation to warn third parties of predictable danger caused

Before a counselling session starts it is important that the client understands confidentiality. To be able to understand this the counsellor must explain to the client that anything they say within the

The duty to warn and protect is the result of the Supreme Court case Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. (Gehring 1982) In this case the courts decided that a psychotherapist having knowledge of the

However, it is not always that simple and there may be some instances when it is not possible to maintain total confidentiality and the counsellor my have to pass on certain information that was revealed. For example, if a crime has been committed or if there is a risk of harm to another person. In this case the counsellor must be clear with the client what information they may have to pass on and to whom.

I selected the article “Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas” for review, as it applies to the state in which I reside. The article cites Texas Health and Safety Codes, based on a 1999 Texas Supreme Court ruling that states counselors do not have a duty to warn or protect. Having a duty to warn and protect is defined as protecting clients or others from perceived harm (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014). An example would be that a client tells their counselor in a confidential session that he is considering stabbing his ex-girlfriend. The duty to warn would mean the counselor should notify authorities and the ex-girlfriend thus breaking confidentiality. The duty to protect would be to admit client to a facility for the client to be assessed for a propensity for violence towards the ex-girlfriend. This became important after a 1969 incident where a counselor, had a client expressed harm towards a girl and the counselor contacted the authorities, yet never contacted the girl, who was subsequently killed by the client a few months later, known as the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014).

overview of their lives and feelings, the therapist will get an insight into what the client is going through and a little of what brought them to their presenting issue. It is important at an early stage to make the client feel that there is hope and light at the end of the tunnel – without making unrealistic promises that cannot be reached. The therapist needs to make the client feel they are in safe hands and that they are being listened to and really heard. A potentially suicidal client should not leave a therapy session feeling worse than when they arrived, yet at the same time, the client needs to know that they may have to go through some difficult times in order to start to heal

There are several ethical dilemmas that the mental health professionals that are working as a team will face including “ensuring that the client has given informed consent, maintaining client confidentiality, and involving professionals, paraprofessionals, and family in appropriate coordinated processes that benefit the client” (Paproski & Haverkamp, 2000, p.96).

The ethical dilemma I wish to explore is The Duty to Warn. This refers to the duty of a counselor, therapist to breach one of the most important bonds between a client and a therapist; the law of confidentiality. The therapist has the right to break confidentiality without the fear of being brought up for legal action. If the therapist believes that the client poses a danger, or is a threat to himself, someone else, or society as a whole, the therapist must decide how serious of a threat the client may be, then if he decides it’s a serious issue, he must notify the person in danger, which would e the third party, or the police, or other people who may be in the

When mental health counselors work with various clients during their career, they need to practice confidentiality and privacy when conducting one-on-one, group, or any type of counseling services. Like any medical patient, mental health clinicians need to treat their clients with dignity and respect. It is extremely important for the mental health counselor working with his or her assigned caseload

• Under the chapter XI: Offences • Section 72: Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy • Section 72A: Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract:

To protect our personal information, the Data Protection was introduced in 1998; it is law which is aimed to protect our personal data stored on computers or in a paper filling system. The Act also controls how our personal information is used by organisations, businesses and the government. In addition, this Act also requires companies and individuals to keep personal information to themselves. As well as that, the Act provides legal rights to people who have information stored about them.

The importance of these guidelines is to protect a client’s rights, and our rights. These rights must be applied when working with other individuals inside the workplace. It is important to give guidance to any individual who is seeking assistance. It is our job to make sure a client is safe among themselves, and other people. Another important job of these guidelines is serve each client, by providing the correct knowledge that will better assist each client.

Exception to Autonomy – If a counselor becomes aware that an individual is planning on infringing on the rights of others, by causing harm or depriving them of their autonomy, the counselor is held to the “Duty to Warn” and must

Act was made law in 1984 but was replaced by a new Act in 1998 to

In Europe, ever since the first proposal for harmonized data protection laws were made by the EU in 1973, one of the fundamental principles of data protection law has been that of data retention or data conservation (the obligation of the data user or controller to keep data for a limited period of time only) (Warner, 2005). Since the late 1960s data retention has been subject to quasi-legal restrictions in Europe. The first proposal for harmonized data protection laws in Europe was made by the Council of Europe in 1973 (Warner 2005).