It may be true that Tarasoff was a California-based decision, but I feel
pretty comfortable with the duty to protect generally and think you're
covering yoursel, as well as the potential well-beiong of another, by using
it as a general rule. Naturally, confidentiality is vital and should be
protected, but Tarasoff, while not the law of the land, is likely to be the
leaning of the court system in general.
David W.
At 12:42 PM 4/8/99 -0500, Gerald Henkel-Johnson wrote:
>If you are going to use Tarasoff, make sure it applies or has been adopted
>in your state. Tarasoff is a specifically California doctrine, though it
>has been recognized in most states. Don't assume!
>
>Jerry Henkel-Johnson, Psy.D.
>Duluth, MInnesota
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> David Wasieleski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/08 8:07 AM >>>
>I agree with the prior posts. Unfortunately, APA's ethics code doesn't
>address HIV issues directly, and neither have any court cases to my
>knowledge. Legally, the Tarasoff "duty to protect" would seem to extend to
>such a case, particularly since there is a clear danger to a specific
>individual. The ethical question is fuzzier, but again, one would likely
>feel an obligation to have this be brough out in the counseling session.
>Encouraging the infected person to disclose their health status would be
>the best first step, but I would likely be even more directive and suggest
>(in a more therapeutic tone, wording etc.) that "if you don't tell, I
>will." Certainly, one could appeal to their sense of whether they care
>about their partner's well-being, etc.
>Anyway, that's my 2 cents...
>David W.
>
>
>At 10:35 PM 4/7/99 -0400, David wrote:
>>At 04:02 PM 4/7/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] went:
>>
>>> We were discussing some ethical issues in counseling today in my course
>>> on close relationships, and a student asked whether a counselor who
>>> learned that one member of a couple had been infected by HIV would be
>>> ethically obligated to tell the other partner of the infection.
>>
>>I think the obvious first step is to encourage the HIV+ patient to
>>inform his or her partner. If the HIV+ patient refuses, I think the
>>two _legal_ obligations that have to be balanced are his or her
>>confidentiality rights vs. the partner's right to be informed. One
>>compromise I've heard recommended is to contact the appropriate health
>>authorities so they _they_ can contact the partner and say, without
>>further explanation, "We believe you've been exposed to HIV."
>>
>>--David Epstein
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>David Wasieleski, Ph.D.
>Department of Psychology and Counseling
>Valdosta State University
>Valdosta, GA 31698
>912/333-5930
>http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dtwasieleski
>
>"Maybe I'm crazy but laughing out loud
>Makes the pain pass by
>And maybe you're crazy
>But laughing out loud makes it all subside..."
> --Dave Matthews Band
> "Spoon"
>
>
David Wasieleski, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology and Counseling
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
912/333-5930
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dtwasieleski
"Maybe I'm crazy but laughing out loud
Makes the pain pass by
And maybe you're crazy
But laughing out loud makes it all subside..."
--Dave Matthews Band
"Spoon"
