Confidentiality+and+HIV+Literature+Review 

Home HIV Case  Confidentiality and HIV Literature Review  Ethical Issues and Legal ConsiderationsCounselor Interview Decision Making Model

media type="youtube" key="nJi2U_VYABs" width="504" height="377" align="center"

The literature surrounding the duty to warn partners of clients with infectious diseases in the counseling profession is both varied and controversial. Scholars debate whether or not counselors, like medical doctors, have the right to inform the partners of their clients of their clients' diagnoses; or if counselors function separately from other fields of medicine and should have their own set of rules and procedures for informing their clients' partners. We have been given a case that asks how we would proceed when faced with a difficult ethical dilemma: our client has been found to be HIV positive, but worries that if she tells her partner about the diagnosis that he will become unstable and might harm her physically, which is a valid fear, since her partner has behaved violently towards her in the past. To help make this very difficult decision, we have turned to the literature to shed light on how to ethically proceed with our client.  Sadly, there is no one ethical standard for counselors that gives a clear answer of how they should proceed in a case like ours. Scholars warn that it is unwise to attempt to make broad decisions about when it is appropriate to disclose to possible victims ([|Melby, 2004]). Duty to warn situations can put counselors in an ethical double bind. If they do not warn potential victims, they can be found negligent, and may be held legally accountable ([|Kamenar, 1984]). If they do warn potential victims, then they may be viewed as unnecessarily breaching confidentiality, and they may also be held legally accountable for this action ([|Costa & Altekruse, 1994]).  We must also take into consideration the different state laws regarding confidentiality in a counseling relationship. Many mental health professionals are unaware of their state's laws regarding third party notification and their duty to warn. One study found that eighty seven percent of the mental health professionals in one state inaccurately believed that they had a legal mandate to protect third parties, despite their state's law which did not allow third party notification by mental health workers ([|Pabian, Welfel, & Beebe, 2009]). Mental health professionals are expected to know their state's laws concerning third party notification, and ignorance of your state's laws concerning third party notification will not serve as a legal defense. The laws concerning the notification of third parties at possible risk for a HIV infection are vastly different from state to state ([|Walcott, Cerundolo, & Beck, 2001]). Depending on which state our particular ethical dilemma occurred in, informing our client's partner could not only be an ethical violation, but could also potentially violate state laws regarding patient confidentiality, leaving us legally accountable. [|Felthous and Kachigian (2001)] warn that because of the ambiguity surrounding a clinician's duty to warn and duty to protect, there is always the possibility that litigation against the clinician might occur.  [|Melby (2004)] emphasizes that mental health professionals generally do not have a legal duty to warn unless an actual threat is made towards an identifiable and specific victim. [|Huprich, Fuller, and Snider (2003)] suggest that before a clinician considers disclosing the HIV infection to the partner, they should encourage the client to inform their sexual partners themselves. The counselor could offer the client the option of bringing the client's partner(s) to a counseling session to disclose to them in a safe environment, with a neutral third party present. The counselor could also discuss other practical actions with the client, such as using psychoeducational measures to teach the client how to practice safe sex. Other alternatives to actually disclosing to the partner also include documenting everything that happens with the client during therapy sessions, as well as consulting with colleagues and getting their opinions on the situation ([|Melby, 2004]).  Part of the controversy of informing clients' partners of a positive HIV diagnosis is the nature of the disease itself. HIV is a virulent and often fatal disease, and early detection is an essential component of battling the virus. Given the danger and high mortality rate of this infectious disease, some scholars have argued that counselors have the right to directly inform all of their client's sexual partners if the client refuses to do so themselves ([|Stanard & Hazier, 2001]). Others have argued that by informing the client's current partner(s) without permission, they are reducing the chances that their clients will tell previous and future sexual partners about their diagnosis, and this will in turn encourage the spread of the virus. They also posit that this action on the part of the counselor could breach confidentiality and break the trust built between the client and counselor ([|Stanard & Hazier, 2001]).  The image of third party notification when there is potential for a HIV infection presented by the literature is mixed. Some scholars argue for immediate notification of the third party if the client refuses to disclose to them, but most argue that this action could be unwise, both ethically and legally. As future counselors in an increasingly litigious world, we must be careful to make decisions that do not leave us open to the threat of lawsuits. After carefully considering the differing opinions on cases like ours, we have concluded that the best action would be to encourage our client to disclose her HIV infection to her partner herself, and that we should not notify her partner. If our client ultimately refuses to reveal her HIV infection to her partner, we might take further steps, such as informing the public health department. As of right now, we believe that our primary responsibility is to our client, and we do not feel that we have enough sound legal justification for informing her partner at this point.

**References **

Costa, L., & Altekruse, M. (1994). Duty-to-warn guidelines for mental health counselors. //Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(4),// 346- 350. 9410241446

Felthous, A. R., & Kachigian, C. (2001). To warn and to control: Two distinct legal obligations or variations of a single duty to protect? //Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19(3),// 355- 373. 1181881

Huprich, S. K., Fuller, K. M., & Schneider, R. B. (2003). Divergent ethical perspectives on the duty-to-warn principle with HIV patients. //Ethics & Behavior, 13(3),// 263- 279. 11021104

Kamenar, P. D. (1984). Psychiatrists' duty to warn of a dangerous patient: A survey of the law. //Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2(3),// 259- 272. 16402984

Pabian, Y. L., Welfel, E., & Beebe, R. S. (2009). Psychologists' knowledge of their states' laws pertaining to Tarasoff-type situations. //Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(1),// 8- 14. 10.1037/a0014784

Stanard, R., & Hazier, R. (1995). Legal and ethical implications of HIV and duty to warn for counselors: Does Tarasoff apply? //Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(4),// 397- 400. 9506040002

Tood, M. (2004). Duty to warn. //Contemporary Sexuality, 38(1),// 1- 6. 12792142

Walcott, D.M., Cerundolo, P., & Beck, J. C. (2001). Current analysis of the Tarasoff duty: An evolution towards the limitation of the duty to protect. //Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(3),// 325- 343. 11818826