'Interoffice Memo Essay\r'

'Yesterday, July 1, 1976, the public opinion in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was decided. The Supreme accost of California imposed a legal province to psychotherapists, enforceable by a civil suit, to caution a person who whitethorn become a victim of a violent act by a patient or if the patient panicens to malign themselves. As professionals in the human race Service expanse it is necessary that we adhere to this when a client whitethorn threaten to hurt themselves or a nonher person.\r\nWith this judgment, and beforehand any action is taken, we are reminded of our code of ethical motive. Human Service Professionals have guidelines in their responsibility to the client. The ruling of this case has affected our ethical decision making, in that, we also acknowledge that we need to not exactly assist our client but also, if threat is made, to assist and protect a potential victim. Once this threat is made, ethically, we have no option but to overcompensate it and to not do so, we break our code of ethics and the law. This case has made us aware of the position that threats can and possibly will be carried out, in that locationfore, threats should not and will not be taken lightly.\r\nOur command of Ethics has changed slightly since this ruling was imposed and opus we still protect our client’s confidentiality and privacy, there is now an exception. â€Å"If it is suspected that danger or detriment may occur to the client or to others as a result of a client’s behavior, the human service professional acts in an eliminate and professional manner to protect the safety of those individuals. This may involve seeking consultation, supervision, and/or breaking the confidentiality of the relationship.” (Woodside and McClam, 2011)\r\nReferences:\r\nWoodside, M., & vitamin A; McClam, T. (2011). An introduction to human services (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:\r\n bear/Cole Cengage Learning.\r\n'