All Tips

Limitations to confidentiality and privileged communication
Both the psychological organizations that professionaliy mandate confidentiality and the legislatures that legally mandate privileged, communication for counsellors recognize the limitations to these mandates. Counsellors have obligations to the institutions that employ them (when not self employed ) and to society in general as well as to their clients. It is generally recognized that when counsellors by virtue of their employment setting. Work with counsellor who do not have full autonomy for reasons of age, mental incompetency, criminal incarceration, or similar legal restrictions, the counsellor may have to work with others who exercise significant control and direction over the counseflee.

An example of a legislated limitation to confidentiality due to minority status is provided by a United States federal law popularly known as the Buckley Amendment. The Buckley Amendment requires that certain school records may not be disclosed to anyone not directly involved in a child's education but also declares that the parent or legal guardian may have access to all school records with out the child's permission. At age 18 this provision is revoked and the child can deny access to the records unless he or she remains financially dependent on the parents.

Professional psychological organizations have also recognized that limitations exist when clients reveal that they are a danger to individuals or society. In such cases, the counsellor is obligated to inform other professionals who can insure the safety of the threatened person or persons.
When the client's condition indicates clear and imminent danger to the client or others, the member must take action or inform responsible authorities. (American Personnel and Guidance Association 1981 p.1)

The counsellor's responsibility to other members of society was the basis of an important state supreme court decision in the united States that has helped define the limitations to privileged communication. In Tarasoff versus the Board of Regents of the University of California, the court declared that a counsellor who determines that his or her client presents a serious danger of violence to another incurs an obligation to warn the intended victim. Some states have also expanded upon the Tarasoff ruling by declaring that no privilege exists when a client's mental or emotional condition causes the client to be a threat to him or herself or to others. The legislatures of a number of states have also passed laws requiring counsellors to report cases of suspected child abuse, decreeing that no privilege exists when a client reveals such acts to a counsellor.