Duty to Inform vs Client Confidentiality 177help resolve some of the controversy surrounding the LRA doctrine and its impli-
cations for individuals and forensic psychological practice.
DUTY TO INFORM VS CLIENT
CONFIDENTIALITYIntroduction
Duty to inform versus client confidentiality stands as one of the more nebulous areas
of forensic psychology today. The controversy generally involves a mental health
professional's ethical and legal obligation to protect client confidentiality and his or
her duty to warn third parties to whom the client may pose a threat. While the
concept of confidentiality stands historically as one of the primary underpinnings
of psychology, the legal ramifications of the duty to warn have caused substantial
debate as to the limits of confidentiality. In short, the question is "when must and
when should confidentiality be breached?"
The legal limits imposed on confidentiality are the result of the California
Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff u Regents of the University of California.
Generally, Tarasoff imposed an additional obligation on mental health professionals
to consider the potential consequences of not releasing confidential information
under certain circumstances. Thus, the ethically bound psychologist not only has
the responsibility to uphold the value of confidentiality in his or her client relation-
ships, but also must consider the interests of other individuals, organizations, and
society in general in the process.
In this section we explore more fully the concepts of confidentiality and duty to
warn. We consider, in detail, the decision rendered in Tarasoff and its implications
for psychological and forensic psychological practice. Further, we address a more
recent controversy with regard to duty to warn: the implications of duty to warn
for psychologists treating clients infected by the HIV virsus or diagnosed with
AIDS.
Peter is a 32-year-old man who recently began a therapeutic relationship with Dr.
John to address issues of reported depression. Peter's depression appeared to Dr. John to
revolve around several interpersonal issues that seemed to be common to all of Peter's
relationships. After approximately 2 months of therapy. Peter told Dr. John that he
was beginning to feel very secure in their therapeutic relationship and that there was
something he needed to address. Peter then confessed that he was bisexual which, because
he had not told anyone, caused him a great deal of stress. Peter further reported that his
first homosexual encounter was about a year ago and he had since engaged in several
short-term relationships with other men. While Peter enjoyed the company of men,
he stated that he had every intention of continuing to date women. In particular, Peter
noted an 8-month relationship with a woman named Michelle.
Dr. John and Peter continued to address this issue over the course ot the next several
months. One day, seeming particularly tense, Peter confessed to Dr. John that he had