178 7 Court and the Legal System—Civil Forensicsbeen diagnosed as HIV positive. He maintained that he had been tested 'just to be safe"
about a month ago and had been informed of the results about 2 weeks ago. Peter told
Dr. John that he was concerned, but ''it hadn't quite sunk in yet." Further, Peter stated
that lie was continuing to have unprotected sex with several ot his companions because
it was unlikely that he could infect others in such a short time. In particular, Peter said he
did not want to inform Michelle. He had come to the conclusion that Michelle would
end the relationship upon hearing the news, and Peter did not want this to happen.Literature Review
The ethical principles of the American Psychological Association (1992) emphasize
the psychologist's obligation to respect the privacy interests of the client. Maintain-
ing confidentiality (assuring that a client's privacy will be protected) over the course
of a relationship ensures that clients will feel free to engage more fully (i.e., fully
disclose) with the psychologist (Kagle & Kopels, 1994). Further, the establishment
of confidentiality standards serves to protect the client from the negative effects
of stigmatization (Stanard & Hazier, 1995). Thus, confidentiality, from its original
intent to foster therapeutic relationships to its expanded consideration as an ethical
responsibility, assumes a significant and necessary role in the effective psychologist-
client relationship.
Confidentiality includes most information obtained over the course of a psy-
chologist's contact with a client. Revealing confidential information is ethically
acceptable only upon consent of the client or upon consent from the client's legal
representative. Undermining the trust that is often difficult to build in the first place.
violating standards of confidentiality may result in termination of the relationship,
poor outcome, and/or malpractice suits against the psychologist (Kagle & Kopels,
1994).
Recently, however, confidentiality has become more difficult to maintain. The
ability of the psychologist to protect privacy through confidentiality has been cur-
tailed by a number of issues. Namely, these issues revolve around the court's ex-
panding interest and involvement in professional decisions (Kagle & Kopels, 1994).
Clients must be made aware of the limits of confidentiality at the outset of the
relationship and, additionally, must be made aware of the process of breaching
confidentiality. Thus, psychologists are often forced into onerous decisions which
necessitate the weighing of confidentiality against third-party interests in obtain-
ing that information. This issue is, perhaps, most profound when clients who are
violent or potentially violent are involved.
The "duty to warn," which has more recently invoked limits on client pri-
vacy and confidentiality rights, stems from the 1976 California Supreme Court
case Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. In Tarasoff, client Poddar in-
formed psychologist Dr. Moore over the course of their therapy that he intended
to kill a woman when she returned from vacation. Taking the threats seriously, Dr.
Moore consulted with his supervisors and campus police. Poddar did not meet the