Respond to the postings of two of your colleagues who chose a different law than yours and respond in one or more of the following ways: Ask a probing question about the duty to warn and protect law that your colleague chose. Offer and support an opinion on the importance of the law that your colleague chose. Choose a law that one of your classmates created and discuss how it may be in harmony or conflict with core values of your profession and what you see the potential outcomes/consequences might be related to its implementation. REPLY QUOTE Colleague 1 RE: Week 2 Discussion 2 COLLAPSE Post a summary of the duty to warn and protect law in your state. Then explain issues or events that necessitated the creation of the law. Be specific and provide examples to support your response. The NASW (2018) and Washington State have guidelines regarding the duty to warn for mental health professionals. In Washington State according to RCW 71.05.120 you are required to give notice to protect an individual when a client has communicated an actual threat or physical threat towards an identifiable target. There are laws that protect us that RCW 71.05.120 explains that there are exemptions from liability. For instance, if a client left the office you are not responsible to detain them for evaluation and treatment if your duties were performed in good faith. Some common issues that arise that may arise is with confidentiality with our clients. There may be times that a call for instance needs to be traced because they have made a threat against themselves or to harm others. The NASW (2018), ethical standards discuss confidentiality as well, this is a very important topic, however we do have to break confidentiality when they are a danger to themselves or others. Volk v DeMeerleer (2016) is a recent Washington State case that is revisiting the obligation of mental health clinicians regarding protecting third parties and the duty to warn, (Piel & Opara, 2018). This case involved clinicians breaching confidently to any foreseeable victim (rather than an identifiable victim). This has changed many places to change their reporting policies in Washington State to avoid any legal battles of their own. It is actually a very interesting case if you read into it, as there were no direct threats and it was discussed years before any violence occurred. Without changes to the law it is likely that I will see a dilemma for clinicians in Washington State regarding duty to warn Additionally, describe either an addendum that would strengthen the existing law or a new law that you would create and enact to further protect the rights of clients impaired by addictions. What inequity or limitation are you attempting to address? What outcomes would you like to see if your law passed? Support your response using the resources and the current literature. To protect all clients including those impaired with addictions and mental health professionals the addendum I would suggest is to retract the ruling the state issued regarding Volk v DeMeerleer (2016) as they altered the duty to warn in three ways 1) Questions the group of health care professionals who are subject to the duty to warn or protect. 2) Voluntary inpatient and outpatient settings are now included 3) The scope of duty to warn or protect was expanded to “foreseeable” victims, whereas before it was identifiable victims and subject to an actual threat. Not only does this impact mental health professionals who might over report because they are afraid with being charged criminally or being sued, this also reduces the trust that the clients have regarding confidentiality. When it comes to clients with addictions, they might make non credible threats and we would be obligated to report them because we see a “foreseeable” victim. References: NASW (2018). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from: https://www.socialworkers.org/about/ethics/code-of-ethics Peil, J, Opara, R. (2018). Does Volk V DeMeerleer Conflict with the AMA Code of Medical Ethics on Breaching Patient Confidentiality to Protect Third Parties? Retrieved from: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/does-volk-v-demeerleer-conflict-ama-code-medical-ethics-breaching-patient-confidentiality-protect/2018-01 Revised Code of Washington 7 Colleague 2 I n the state of Tennessee, the duty to warn and protect law is mandatory under code 33-3-206. It has been in effect since July 1, 2002 and specifically applies to qualified mental health professionals and or behavioral analysts. Mental health professionals have the right to predict, warn, or take precautions when and if an actual threat of bodily harm against another individual has been communicated (Mental Health Professionals’ Duty to Warn, 2018). The main issue that lead to the creation of the law was caused by the well-known case, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1996) in which a psychotherapist formed an explicit special relationship with the potential victim of the client in which they were currently treating (Edwards, 2010). In the state of Tennessee there have been no legal issues that reflect around the creation of this law. Though it is a mandated state, Tennessee is doing everything in its power to protect their clients from legal harm. I would select an addendum that would focus on strengthening this current law by suggesting that reasonable changes be made to the law. For example, instead of mental health professionals having the duty to warn clients if an actual threat has been made, why not make it mandatory for professionals to tell their clients that they are mandated reporters at the beginning of the session. I believe that if professionals had to inform clients before the session utilizing ethical standards such as informed consent, clients would understand ahead of time that some things that are shared with their clinician could potentially be negatively used against them. In relation to addictions, if such information is shared during a session, clinicians should be required to refer the client to a treatment facility immediately. The limitation I am attempting to address is holding those accountable for their actions, even if they have an addiction that may cause them to think or act on harming themselves or others. Reasonably speaking, I do believe that these individuals should have access to receiving help for their addiction, as well as being held accountable for their actions especially if they have the intent to cause bodily harm to someone. If the extension of this law is passed, I would like to see justice be served to the families of the victims involved as well as the person responsible not only be held accountable, but also be treated for their addiction prior to completing a sentencing. References Edwards, G. S. (2010). Database of State Tarasoff Laws. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1551505 Mental Health Professionals’ Duty to Warn. (2018). Retrieved September 09, 2020, from https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx