Therapist-Client Relationship

Confidentiality and Informed Consent Confidentiality has for a long period of time been embedded as the foundation of professional social work values. This is primarily because social workers show honesty and respect through safeguarding the confidentiality of their clients. The significance of confidentiality in social work is demonstrated in the fact that it is basis of ethical standards that govern the social work practices. The need for social workers to protect clients' confidentiality is because the nature of their work involves being provided with confidential and private information of clients.

One of the events or incidents that have played a crucial role in demonstrating the significance of confidentiality in social work is the decision of Tarasoff v. The Board of Regents of the University of California. The process of informed consent and refusal play an important role in confidentiality in the therapist-client relationship. Tarasoff v.

The Board of Regents of the University of California The California Supreme Court made a ruling in 1976 that psychotherapists have a responsibility to safeguard probable victims if their patients behaved in a manner that presented significant danger to another or made threats (Vitelli, 2014). This ruling or decision was made in the case of Tarasoff v. The Board of Regents of the University of California. In this lawsuit, plaintiffs i.e.

Tatiana Tarasoff's parents claimed that psychiatrists at Cowell Memorial Hosptial had the responsibility to warn them of any potential danger by Prosenjit Poddar, their patient. After the Superior Court of Alameda County, California rejected the plaintiff's action, they appealed the decision at the California Supreme Court. The dismissal was based on the argument that the plaintiffs failed to provide a valid claim against the defendants i.e. The Board of Regents of the University of California, the police, and the therapists ("Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California," n.d.).

The California Supreme Court made this ruling on the basis that it is more important for therapists to safeguard the public that safeguarding confidentiality in client-therapist relationship. The aftermath of this decision was the enactment of laws mandating all therapists with the responsibility of protecting probable victims from potential harm or serious danger from their patients or clients. Therapists can achieve this through providing warnings to victims directly, taking necessary measures to prevent the harm or danger, and informing law enforcement agencies and personnel directly.

Link to the Therapist-Client Relationship The decision in Tarasoff v. The Board of Regents University of California has considerable impacts on the therapist-client relationship in relation to confidentiality. The link between the ruling and this relationship is evident in the fact the case focused on examining the degree with which psychotherapists have the duty of safeguarding third persons under safety threats from their patients or clients.

In the therapist-client relationship, psychotherapists are required to warn third parties of potential dangers of physical harm that they are exposed by the patients of the psychotherapist (Nesbitt, 2013, p.747). Since the ruling is currently followed by therapists in many jurisdictions, it has contributed to certain changes in therapist-client relationship in relation to confidentiality. In this case, the ruling introduced restrictions to confidentiality in the therapist-client relationship. Therapists are required to advise patients regarding the limits of confidentiality before the commencement of the treatment process.

Patients are then needed to determine whether to continue with the treatment process despite the absence of assurances that the information they provide may result warnings to a victim or involvement of law enforcement officers. Moreover, therapists have the duty of examining each threatening statement made during treatment to identify whether it is genuine threat or otherwise. Therefore, the therapist-client relationship is characterized by a thin line between safeguarding a potential victim and safeguarding confidentiality in the treatment process.

Many therapists think that the requirement and duty to protect potential victim is adequately compelling to the extent of breach of confidentiality. Process of Informed Consent and Refusal The process of informed consent and refusal are important in the therapist-client relationship in relation to confidentiality. Informed consent is constantly regarded as the basic way the personhood or individuality of the client and safeguarding the rights of self-determination of patients (Fisher & Oransky, n.d.).

Through this process of informed consent and refusal, clients have the liberty to choose whether to enter into or maintain therapist-client relationship (Fisher, n.d.). As an ongoing part of the treatment process, clients need adequate information regarding the process, the therapist, and discussions. The process of informed consent and refusal involves notifying clients of the nature and expected length of the treatment process, explaining fees and payment processes, providing information about third parties, and discussing the restrictions of confidentiality (Fisher & Oransky, n.d.).

This is followed by providing clients with the opportunity to make informed choices regarding their involvement in the therapy. The client then has the choice to enter or refuse his/her participation in the counseling process or therapy. In conclusion, confidentiality is one of the most important elements.