Code of Ethics for Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapists __________________________________
• Breach of contract • Breach of warranty • Spousal loss of consortium
gist consulted with professional colleagues and notified police, both orally and in writing, of his belief that Poddar posed a significant danger to Tarasoff. The psychologist believed that Poddar was suffering from acute, severe, paranoid schizophre- nia. The psychologist also told the police of Poddar’s plans to shoot and kill Tarasoff. The psychologist requested that the campus police detain Poddar and also requested that the police take Poddar to a facility for hospitalization so that an evalu- ation under California’s civil commitment statutes could be administered in order to commit him as a dangerous person. Poddar was detained but shortly thereafter released because he appeared rational, and the police believed he was not a signifi- cant danger to his girlfriend. Poddar agreed that he would stay away from Ms. Tarasoff, but Poddar then befriended Tatiana’s brother and even moved in with him. Poddar stopped seeing his psychologist, and neither Tatiana nor her parents received any warning of the threat he revealed to the psychologist. Pod- dar carried out his plan and killed Tatiana Tarasoff by stabbing her with a kitchen knife. Poddar was sentenced to second degree murder for manslaugh- ter and served four years of a five-year sentence. Poddar’s original sentence was overturned because the jury was not adequately informed of his mental illness. He was allowed to avoid a second trial by agreeing to return to India, and reports indicate he is married and living happily in India today. Tatiana Tarasoff’s parents sued the psychologist, the University of California, and the health center staff involved in the con- sultation, as well as the police. Both trial and appeals courts initially dismissed the case because, at that time, no legal basis existed under California law concerning the duty to warn. The Tarasoff family appealed their case to the Supreme Court of California. The court ruled the defendants knew of the danger prior to the tragedy and had a duty to warn Ms. Tarasoff, or her family, of Poddar’s potential for significant danger due to his severe mental illness and stated plans to kill their daughter. The family believed that the mental health professionals should have insisted on Poddar’s confinement and should have taken steps to ensure he was hospitalized to protect their daughter. In 1974, the court ruled that the therapists did have a duty to warn Ms. Tarasoff. The defendants and several organizations responded and petitioned the court for a new hearing. This petition was granted, and the second hearing in 1976 resulted in the ruling that released the police from liability. It estab- lished, however, that mental health therapists were responsible and placed them under obligation to warn by imposing a duty that they use reasonable care to protect third parties against any dangers posed by a patient. The ruling included the following indicators on the duty to warn to protect the intended victim [9]: • If the therapist concludes, or should have concluded based on the professional standards, that the client was a serious, violent danger to society, they had the duty to warn.
Some state legislators have passed laws that automatically make it illegal for mental health professionals to engage in sexual relationships with their clients. These laws encourage victimized clients to sue. Clients who sue must still prove the sexual relationship harmed them, but harm is broadly defined as mental, emotional, financial, or physical. Sexual dual relationships will always be clear ethical violations. Nevertheless, these relationships continue to occur. Counselors and therapists must be aware that even the small- est form of physical contact, or even close proximity, may be perceived as threatening, suggestive, an invasion of privacy, or offensive to some clients. A client who has been sexually assaulted may be revulsed by even a tap on the back; handshake, certain gestures, or close contact may be offensive to certain cultural groups. It may become an ethical boundary violation if it is harmful, rejected by the client, or is determined to be the result of the counselor’s personal needs. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DUTY TO WARN Anyone familiar with the previous 1995 ACA Code of Ethics will notice the omission of “clear and imminent danger” and the substitution of “serious and foreseeable harm” in the revi- sions. This change was a direct outcome from the legal case Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California . This landmark case from 1969 involved a counselor working with a client who admitted he intended to murder his partner. The study of confidentiality in the mental health field must include a thorough review of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California . Analysis of the legal case has been the subject of much historical literature in the field of mental health ethics. A brief summary follows. Prosenjit Poddar, a student from India, was born into the Harijan, or the “untouchable” caste. He came to UC Berkeley as a graduate student in September 1967 and briefly dated a fellow student named Tatiana Tarasoff. Ms. Tarasoff was not interested in a serious, exclusive, relationship, and that dur- ing the summer of 1969, she went to South America. Poddar felt betrayed, became depressed, and sought counseling with a psychologist at UC Berkeley University’s Health Service Department. During counseling, Poddar confided his intent to buy a gun and kill his former girlfriend. His psychologist concluded Pod- dar posed a significant danger. This conclusion came not only from Poddar’s statements but also from assessment results that indicated a pathological attachment to Tarasoff. The psycholo-
41
EliteLearning.com/Counselor
Powered by FlippingBook