Interoffice Memo Essay

Yesterday, July 1, 1976, the feeling in the chance of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was decided. The Supreme Court of California obligate a legal duty to psychotherapists, enforceable by a well-bred suit, to warn a person who may become a dupe of a violent act by a patient or if the patient threatens to harm themselves. As professionals in the Human Service welkin it is necessary that we adhere to this when a client may threaten to accidental injury themselves or another person.With this ruling, and before any action is taken, we are reminded of our grave of ethics. 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 motivation to not only aid our client but also, if threat is made, to assist and hold dear a potential victim. Once this threat is made, ethically, we have no option but to report it and to not do so, we bre ak our mark of ethics and the law. This case has made us aware of the fact that threats potbelly and possibly will be carried out, therefore, threats should not and will not be taken lightly.Our Code of Ethics has changed slightly since this ruling was imposed and bandage we still protect our clients confidentiality and privacy, there is now an exception. If it is surmise that danger or harm may occur to theclient or to others as a result of a clients behavior, the benignant service professional acts in an appropriate 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)ReferencesWoodside, M., & McClam, T. (2011). An interpolation to human services (7th ed.). Belmont, CABrooks/Cole Cengage Learning.