On the other hand, there are legal cases that have raised troubling worries here, such as Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, from our readings, in which a patient confided to their therapist that they intended to kill a third party, leaving the therapist faced with the choice of preserving the their confidentiality or not, in order to warn the patient's intended victim. There are, of course, cases in which we deal not with psychological therapy, but with physical care, in which, say, we learn form a patient, in the course of an unrelated exam, that they have an std and are sexual active with the intent of putting others at risk, perhaps even other individuals in particular.
In this case, does the content of the oath, which makes otherwise perfectly good and ethical sense, lead us to do no, or as little harm as possible, but disclosing information we might otherwise want not to divulge, other things being equal? Even the reader who's sympathetic the general idea and desirability of confidentiality will want and need to have a sense of what you would have us do in such cases.
Recently Asked Questions
- Can you please review my essay paper on Discussing the pros and cons of watching a sporting event on TV Vs. watching it live, and what are the team
- You are the chief accountant for ZM Corp., which is located in Illinois. In November 2017, that state had the second highest unemployment rate in the Midwest:
- Participant observers can gather a wide range of information about a group or setting under study. Which question is least likely to be considered relevant