Running head: TARASOFF- DUTY TO PROTECT 1
Tarasoff Duty to Protect
Carmen Delgado
Ethics and Legal Issues
Walden University
Tarasoff Duty to Protect
In order for a counselor to make better choices when is confronted with an ethical, professional or legal dilemma, he or she must be aware of the ethical codes, state case law and or the statutes of their state. In this report the statues that will be summarized will be those from Connecticut. The goal is to be able to understand how the Tarasoff decision has been adopted in Connecticut. How a counselor may resolve duty to warn and or duty to protect dilemmas in Connecticut as well. Understanding that Connecticut has laws and statutes and how those laws and statutes may be relevant to the codes of ethics and the ethical decision making.
Summary of Connecticut’s State case law and statutes related to the Tarasoff decision
The Tarasoff Decision was taken to the California Supreme Court and in 1974 was concluded that professional counselors have a responsibility to disclose information to a person who is threaten to be harm by their client (Simone & Fulero, 2005).
According to the Connecticut General Statutes, Connecticut authorizes but does not mandate any mental health professional to breach confidentiality to inform and individual or any third parties when facing themselves with the possibility of someone being exposed to a serious risk of imminent personal injury.
Explain how you might resolve “duty to warn” and/or “duty to protect” dilemmas in Connecticut
Counselors are responsible to serve and protect clients, and when faced with duty to warn and or duty to protect dilemmas the same responsibility still stands (Herlihy & Corey, 2006).
According to the American Counseling Association (2014), the ethical code B.2.a. states that a counselor can disclose information to protect the client or others from any serious and...