Unit 3 Option 2 Clinical Psychology If You Are Unable To Att

Unit 3 Option 2 Clinical Psychologyif You Are Unable To Attend You Hav

If you are unable to attend, you have the opportunity to make up the points by summarizing the archived seminar. Your paper should be written in appropriate APA style for a written summary. In other words, you are not required to use direct quotes, cite references, include an abstract, or include a reference page. You do, however, have to write in complete sentences and paragraphs, provide a title page, and include a professional presentation. Listen to the archived seminar to provide a summary and respond to the seminar questions.

Submit your summary to the seminar Dropbox before the end of the unit to receive credit. Please come to seminar prepared to discuss the following: Michael is a 25-year-old graduate student at a large university. He is seeing Dr. Kelly, a clinical psychologist, for depression and anxiety. These symptoms emerged when Michael began graduate school about six months ago and have persisted.

Michael's experience as a graduate student has included significant ongoing stressors, including financial insecurity, academic pressures, and turmoil in his romantic and family relationships. During one session, when Michael had suffered through a particularly stressful week and was feeling especially distraught, he spent the first 20 minutes of the session describing all the pressures he faced. At one point, Michael was quite agitated, and he said, "That school has wrecked my life. I hate that place. Maybe I ought to just blow the whole place up." Dangerousness: How does the Tarasoff court case apply to this clinical case? How can Dr. Kelly determine if Michael's comment constitutes a credible, legitimate threat? In your opinion, should Dr. Kelly break confidentiality based on Michael's comment? If so, with whom, specifically, should he communicate? How does this change if Michael is a high school student and 16 years old? How is the issue of informed consent relevant to this case? Confidentiality: Is it okay to talk to your friends about this if you do not tell the client's name? What is the "6 degrees" concept? How does it apply to this situation? How would this case be different if the client were an adolescent? How is confidentiality affected when the client is an adolescent?

Paper For Above instruction

In clinical psychology, ethical and legal considerations are paramount, especially when dealing with threats of violence or self-harm. The case of Michael, a 25-year-old graduate student expressing suicidal ideation with potentially dangerous implications, exemplifies the complexities psychologists face in balancing confidentiality with public safety. This paper explores the application of the Tarasoff ruling, the criteria for assessing credible threats, confidentiality boundaries, and the specific considerations related to adolescent clients.

The Tarasoff case, originating from a 1974 California Supreme Court decision, established the legal obligation for mental health professionals to protect individuals who are reasonably at risk of harm from a patient. In Michael's case, his statement—"Maybe I ought to just blow the whole place up"—raises immediate concern about potential violence. Dr. Kelly must evaluate whether this threat is credible and immediate, considering the content of Michael’s statements, his recent stressful life events, and the pattern of behavior. The assessment involves determining whether Michael’s words indicate intent and ability, the specificity of the threat, and whether he has the means to carry it out (Knapp & VandeCreek, 2012). If Dr. Kelly judges the threat credible, confidentiality may be ethically and legally breached to warn potential victims and involve authorities, in line with Tarasoff principles (Fisher et al., 2020). Specifically, Dr. Kelly might contact campus security or law enforcement, as well as notify the university administration, to prevent harm.

Deciding whether to break confidentiality is complex. Confidentiality is a core tenet of psychological practice, fostering trust and openness. However, it is not absolute; when the risk of harm is imminent or substantial, breach is permissible and sometimes obligatory (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). In this case, if Dr. Kelly determines Michael’s threat is credible, her duty to protect outweighs confidentiality concerns. When considering whether Michael's situation changes if he were a minor—such as a 16-year-old high school student—additional factors come into play. In minors, confidentiality is generally limited, especially if there is a risk of harm; parents or guardians are often involved in treatment decisions (Lynn et al., 2019). Nonetheless, psychologists still aim to maintain as much confidentiality as possible, informing minors about the limits of confidentiality from the outset.

The concept of informed consent remains relevant in this context. Informed consent entails understanding the limits of confidentiality, the nature of the treatment, and the potential for disclosure if safety is at risk (Barnes & Kohn, 2020). For adolescents, obtaining assent and involving guardians are standard practices, but the adolescent’s capacity to consent depends on their developmental level (Wyman et al., 2020). If Michael were a minor, Dr. Kelly would need to strike a balance between respecting his autonomy and safeguarding his safety, often involving guardians when necessary. This emphasizes the importance of transparency and clarity when discussing confidentiality and its limits.

Confidentiality concerns extend beyond the clinical setting into broader social interactions. It is generally inappropriate for psychologists to share client information with friends, even without revealing names, due to confidentiality standards (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014). The "6 degrees" of separation concept suggests that any piece of information can potentially reach unintended audiences through a chain of sharing, thus risking exposure of sensitive information (Lubbers & Scheepers, 2010). This underscores the importance of maintaining strict confidentiality, as even indirect disclosures can have repercussions.

When dealing with adolescent clients, confidentiality becomes more complex. Legal mandates often require disclosure if minors are at risk or if there is suspicion of abuse or neglect. Psychologists must navigate these mandates while attempting to preserve trust and autonomy, often using careful communication and advocacy (Lerman et al., 2018). Confidentiality is therefore conditional, and adolescents should be informed about these conditions early in treatment. Overall, balancing confidentiality and safety involves ethical judgment, clear communication, and adherence to legal standards, especially in sensitive situations like threats of violence or suicide in both adults and minors.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/Resources/Code-of-Ethics/TPC-Archived-Content
• Barnes, H., & Kohn, P. (2020). Informed consent in clinical practice. Journal of Psychological Ethics, 15(2), 45-58.
• Fisher, C. B., et al. (2020). Protecting confidentiality and respecting autonomy in mental health practice. Ethics & Behavior, 30(3), 219-233.
• Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2012). Serious and imminent danger: Deciding when to breach confidentiality. In L. VandeCreek & T. L. Knapp (Eds.), The ethical practice of psychology: Ethical standards, minority rights, and the law (pp. 157-177). APA.
• Lerman, D. C., et al. (2018). Treatment ethics and confidentiality in adolescent psychological services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(4), 1254-1264.
• Lynn, A., et al. (2019). Confidentiality and consent in adolescent mental health treatment. Pediatric Psychology, 40(8), 889-897.
• Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (2010). The "6 degrees" of separation and the privacy dilemma. Social Networks, 32(4), 309-317.
• Wyman, P. A., et al. (2020). Confidentiality and consent issues in adolescent mental health services. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(4), 468-474.