Tarasoff Revisited
This was the critical action the therapist failed to take in Tarasoff, leading to the court’s ruling.
A. Hospitalize client
B. Warn the identifiable victim
C. Terminate therapy
D. Document session
What is warning the identifiable victim?
This concept determines whether a counselor is ethically or legally at risk after failing to act on a client’s threat.
A. Client outcome alone
B. Standard of care and foreseeability
C. Personal values
D. Length of therapy
What is the standard of care and foreseeability?
This is the accurate statement about Texas law regarding duty to warn in all situations.
A. Always required
B. Never allowed
C. Always mirrors Tarasoff
D. Not always required
What is it is not always required?
This is the FIRST step when a client expresses vague thoughts about harming someone.
A. Warn the victim
B. Call police
C. Assess risk and gather more information
D. Terminate client
What is assessing risk and gathering more information?
This broader concept, rather than simply “warning,” more accurately reflects the responsibility established by Tarasoff.
A. Duty to report
B. Duty to refer
C. Duty to protect
D. Duty to diagnose
What is duty to protect?
This is the central ethical conflict in duty to warn situations.
A. Diagnosis vs treatment
B. Autonomy vs billing
C. Confidentiality vs protection from harm
D. Supervision vs independence
What is confidentiality versus protection from harm?
This was the key takeaway from Thapar v. Zezulka regarding duty to warn.
A. Always required
B. Identical to Tarasoff
C. More limited and context-dependent
D. Only applies to minors
What is it is more limited and context-dependent?
This factor becomes most important when a client identifies a specific target but denies intent.
A. Immediate warning
B. Ignoring unless repeated
C. Assessing seriousness, intent, and imminence
D. Ending therapy
What is assessing seriousness, intent, and imminence?
These two elements must generally be present to strongly consider breaching confidentiality in Tarasoff-type situations.
A. Emotional distress + past trauma
B. Vague anger + no plan
C. Serious threat + identifiable victim
D. Family conflict + stress
What is a serious threat and an identifiable (foreseeable) victim?
This ethical violation occurs when a counselor breaks confidentiality without sufficient justification of risk.
A. Malpractice
B. Countertransference
C. Unjustified breach of confidentiality
D. Lack of empathy
What is an unjustified breach of confidentiality?
In Texas, this becomes most critical when deciding whether to break confidentiality in a threat situation.
A. Client preference
B. Counselor intuition alone
C. Clinical judgment, consultation, and documentation
D. Avoiding liability at all costs
What is clinical judgment, consultation, and documentation?
This is the best next step when a counselor is unsure whether a threat meets the threshold for action.
A. Do nothing
B. Immediately report
C. Seek consultation and document decision-making
D. Refer client out
What is seeking consultation and documenting the decision-making process?