COUN6306 Walden Tarasoff v Regents of California & Estates of Morgan v Fairfield Family Counseling Center Discussion
Hi PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ ALL REQUIRED MATERIAL AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT. I AM NOT ALWAYS ONLINE SO PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO ACCESS ALL LINKS/MATERIAL IMMEDIATELY :) This assignment is for a discussion post. No set number of pages are required. It does not need to be long (about one page or less) but it needs to be very well written, scholarly, in a natural discussion/conversational tone, using APA. It will involve reading material (see additional doc). I have included extra time for this. A response to two of the other discussion posts will be required but I will send that later. I have included my sign in details for the ebooks within the doc attached.Week 2 Assignment For this assignment, compare and contrast two instrumental court decisions (i.e., Tarasoff v. Regents of California (1976) and Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center (1997), both impacting confidentiality practices in the counseling profession. Discuss how the rulings impact clinical practice. The Assignment (2–3 pages): Compare and contrast the details of the Tarasoff v. Regents of California (1976) and Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center (1997) court decisions. Consider how these cases may be similar or how they may be different. Describe how the court rulings relate to confidentiality in profession of counseling. Cite appropriate ethical codes to support your narrative. Put on a ‘counselor hat’ and discuss how the rulings might clarify or make it more difficult for you as a clinician. Reflect upon your understanding of your responsibility to maintain confidentiality with a client. Your paper should be in proper APA format with a minimum of 2-3 scholarly references. Use the readings, additional readings, course textbook and the court cases to support your stance, or any other related references you might find. Submit your Assignment by Day 7. 1 of 1 26/08/2019, 10:47 Weekly Instructions https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/USW1/202010_... Week 2: Confidentiality Introduction The American Counseling Association (ACA) commits an entire section of its code of ethics to confidentiality, privileged communication, and privacy as it pertains to ethical and legal issues for the counseling profession. Although these expectations belong to the client, counselors are responsible for maintaining and upholding them. Yet, of course, these issues are not absolute because there are situations in which counselors must breach client confidentiality to disclose certain information. In what situations do these breaches apply? Various case laws and statutes, which can vary from state-to-state, have determined a range of areas in which counselors are mandated to divulge privileged information (e.g., court ordered disclosure). This week, you examine ethical and legal confidentiality issues as they relate to the profession of counseling (e.g., responding to subpoenas and court orders, sharing information with other behavioral health care professionals, exceptions to confidentiality). You examine how these issues continue to evolve, ethically and legally, and analyze how pertinent case law might have a bearing on the issue of confidentiality as a counselor. Learning Objectives Students will: Analyze challenges to confidentiality Analyze implications of court case decisions Examine trends and counselor responsibilities in relation to confidentiality Learning Resources https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/USW1/202010_... Week 2 Learning Resources This page contains the Learning Resources for this week. Be sure to scroll down the page to see all of this week's assigned Learning Resources. Required Resources Readings Remley, T. P., Jr., & Herlihy, B. (2016). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Chapter 5, “Confidentiality and Privileged Communication” (pp. 106–129) American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics. Current Edition. Edwards, G. (2013). Tarasoff, duty to warn laws, and suicide. International Review of Law and Economics, 34, 1-8. Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center (1997), 77 Ohio St. 3d 284, 285. Fisher, M. A. (2016). Step 1. Prepare to protect confidentiality rights. In, Confidentiality limits in psychotherapy: Ethics checklists for mental health professionals (pp. 27-36). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14860-003 McNamara, J. G. (2015). Confidentiality conflicts: A practical solution to a persistent problem. Journal of Legal Professional, 40, 105. Reinhardt, R. r. (2016). Thinking about discussing clients online? Think twice. Counseling Today, 59(3), 18-20. Walker, T. (1997). Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center: Application of traditional tort law post-Tarasoff. Akron Law Review, 31(2), 321. Please proceed to the Assignment. Return to top Note: To access this week's required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus. 1 of 1 26/08/2019, 10:45
