Create a 5 pages page paper that discusses expediency of continuing psychotherapist-client interaction surpassing limits of counseling. Describing the case briefly, it is necessary to mention that after a concussion the patient found himself in the condition when he could no longer rely on his cognition and needed coordination and guidance. The therapist decided to help the client and disclosed information to an attorney and a friend after signing a release with the client. The counselor also attracted other people to assist Mr. Albertson as he seemed to lose his connection with reality.
Generally despite the evident fact that Dr. Jones was acting according to then Principle A of Ethical Principles of Psychologists which states that beneficence and nonmaleficence are the core aspects of work: “Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons” (2010).
The first noticeable violation concerns privacy and confidentiality. The issue is rather ambivalent because the therapist could be viewed as acting in an emergency situation trying to help the client. In most cases, any intervention in a patient`s personal life is a violation but at the same time a psychotherapist is guided by the principle of the beneficence of a customer and in some cases, he needs to choose whether to cross or not to cross the boundary (Prasko & Vyskocilova, 2013).
However, Dr. Jones made a serious and responsible decision to have the client, who was already suffering from injury and demonstrated multiple cognitive deficits, sign a release in order to be able to share his personal information with third parties. The release is quite a disputable and problematic document because it is not likely that Mr. Albertson could evaluate adequately what was going on as he had troubles understanding concepts, however, such agreements can be made only in the condition of full patient`s awareness. So the Assessment standard could also be violated to a certain extent. Moreover, further information disclosure about the patient followed initial communication with the attorney and Mr. Albertson`s friend (despite the fact that only these two people were discussed primarily). In the case study, it is mentioned that Dr. Jones communicated to the primary physician and others revealing confidential information about Mr. Albertson.