Confidentiality is the keystone of effective counselling and psychotherapy because it allows the client to freely share experiences without fear of unwarranted disclosure to others. Confidentiality refers to the ethical principle that compels psychologists to hold secret all information about a client and to keep private any information revealed by a client in confidence unless the client consents to the disclosure of the information to a third party or the law authorize the release of information without the client's consent.

Review what the codes of ethics have to say about this topic and incorporate this into your discussions:

"You are a psychologist providing psychotherapeutic services to a client with emotional difficulties resulting from having been assaulted. Much of your sessions' content has been devoted to how the client has been dealing with the lengthy legal process. The case was recently heard in court, where the client's accused was found guilty and sentenced to prison. During a session shortly after the trial, your client says of feeling conflicted. The client tells you that the person convicted of assaulting the client was not actually the person who did it. In a cold and angry voice, the client states, "I know that he's done lots of things that he was never convicted of, so I hope he rots in jail." The client refuses to reveal this to anyone else and insists that you not tell anyone either."

Is there a general duty of confidentiality, and what is the basis for this general ethical rule? Based on the presented case, is it ever appropriate to violate the duty of confidentiality? If so, under what conditions? Provide legal and ethical examples where breaking the rule of confidentiality might be justified?

Source: taken from: Truscott, D., & Crook, K. (2021).Ethics for the Practice of Psychology in Canada, Third Edition(3rd ed.). The University of Alberta Press.

This will be a discussion of confidentiality and duty to warn! What will be the consequences if the man is found guilty? Do they constitute harm to an individual (physical or psychological)? This is where you will bring in those 3 aspects needed to justify duty to warn (supreme court ruling-- I'll add the citation here). There won'tbe a wrong answer as long as you can justify it using the codes! I encourage you to be open to both perspectives though. Be mindful of your biases here!

An example, only to be used as a guideline as to what it should look like

DQ 3.2.1

As per the ethical standards set out in the Canadian Psychological Association's Code of Ethics (COE; 2017), a therapist must only share confidential information with others when they have obtained informed consent (Standard, I.45). However, the COE also requires therapists to stop or offset harm to others created by the actions of the client (Standard, II.42). Allowing an individual to be wrongly convicted can lead to serious mental health issues and a greater risk of self-harm (Roy, 2019) and therefore could justify breaching client confidentiality. A similar scenario is presented by Huprich et al. (2003) in which the actions of the client can cause harm to another person. In this article, the authors explore decision making from two perspectives: utilitarianism, where the ethical decision is that which is in the best interest of the greatest number of people, and the deontological perspective, where the decision is made in the greatest interest of the client. Dr. Olszewski had mentioned the mental healthcare field works from the deontological approach and as such the honoring the client's confidentiality should be the main priority in this scenario. Might the course of action depend on the imminence and severity of harm to the other individual

References

Canadian Psychological Association. (2017).Code of ethics. https://www.cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf

Huprich, S., Fuller, K., & Schneider, R. (2003). Divergent ethical perspectives on the duty-to-warn principle with HIV patients. Ethics and Behavior, 13(3), 263-278. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1303_05.

https://discovery.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=53e36906-d453-36ae-8522-3275611614a2

Roy, R. (2019). The dangerous effects of wrongful convictions. Brian Snell. https://www.briansnell.ca/the-dangerous-effects-of-wrongful-convictions

Supreme court source:

O'Shaughnessy, R., Glancy, G.D., Bradford, J.M. (1999). Canadian landmark case, Smith v. Jones, Supreme Court of Canada: Confidentiality and privilege suffer another blow. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,27(4), 614-620.