Informed Consent Case Paper

Case #1
It does not appear that Jamie had discussed inform consent as part of her ethical and legal duty to inform the client clearly about confidentiality and the exceptions. Sarah apparently did

not know that the sessions were confidential until the session had already started and later you

can also tell that she did not know about the exceptions to confidentiality. Although Jamie told

her that the sessions were completely confidential, she failed to tell her that there were

numerous exceptions and disclosing those limits, both as part of the inform consent contract

……is ethically required. (Younggren and Harris 2005 p.590) This makes the client unclearly

informed. According to the Code of Ethics (2015, 1.2) I didn’t see anything

Had she dealt with transference this could have been a way to use it to

her advantage to help Sarah in the therapeutic process. Psychotherapist should outline for both children and parents the limit that exist on

confidentiality when treating minors. They should contract with the parents to protect the

privacy of their minor child in a way that fulfill the parent need to understand what is

generally going on in treatment without violating the minor confidentiality rights

(Younggren and Harris (2005 p. 598)

Had Jamie done this it would have been clear to the parent and the child the issue of

confidentiality and its exceptions. The exceptions should have been clearly explained to

both. It would ensure that the child’s rights are protected and Sarah would be informed as to

what can be disclosed without permission or not. Jamie would also be protecting herself because

she had inform them and gotten their consent. In the event that she had to disclose something

unlawful she wouldn’t need their permission and she would be in the clear because she had

discussed it.

Jamie lied to the mother and I think that was unethical. According to Atkin