Hypothetical Question About Disclosing Details Of A Murder Or Crime

[Jade-]

Hypothetically speaking, If a person told their therapist details of a murder or serious crime that they remember happening 30 or 40 years ago, would the therapist be obligated by law to turn the information in to authorities?


Just curious.

 

[catjudo]

I do not believe so. I'm sure others on here will be able to give you a better answer.

 

[ScubaChick]

Hmmm. I want to say yes, especially if the case is still un-solved. I'm sure there's some law that could keep you annonymous though...?

 

[Jade-]

So one no vote and one yes..... I will google it and see what I find.

 

[Jade-]

Does anyone else know?

 

[James B.]

It may (am guessing) have something to do with, if the person who commited the crime is still alive.

If I were a tharapist, and I was informed of a serious crime by a witness with credibility (meaning not mental health inpatient, etc) and I believed the witnesses claim - and the assailant were still at large AND capable of harming other...I would probably inform the authorities.

 

[catjudo]

I'm not afraid to ask since I'm not the one in the position. (I'm sure it would be different if the question actually directly affected me.) I have an appointment with my psychologist tomorrow evening. I'm willing to ask him and report back to you if you'd like.

 

[Jade-]

Sure, catjudo, that would be awesome. Thanks.

 

[anthony]

Client confidentiality typically prevails all else unless you are either a: going to hurt yourself and they believe such threats, b: you are going to kill someone, they believe you are going to commit an act against the law.

Being a witness, remembering, even doing in past tense, I think you will find patient confidentiality prevails.

 

[Ladyhope Somerset]

It may (am guessing) have something to do with, if the person who commited the crime is still alive.

If I were a tharapist, and I was informed of a serious crime by a witness with credibility (meaning not mental health inpatient, etc) and I believed the witnesses claim - and the assailant were still at large AND capable of harming other...I would probably inform the authorities.

In the UK health care professionals are bound by 'client confidentiality' unless there is a risk to their client or the community and if that were the case there's a policy & procedures to follow.

 

[Deleted member 5760]

Yes, I think confidentiality would trump in the majority of circumstances. It is an interesting hypothetical question to pose and would certainly make for a contentious essay style question (or possibly an interesting novel). I suppose we have to remember the function of rules like confidentiality. It is fundamental to the working of the system that confidentiality exists. You have to know when speaking to a mental health professional that what you say is kept within those 4 walls (or I suspect many people would not be willing or comfortable to seek help, not to mention it would place psychologists in an unbearably tough position).

I suppose it would be a bit like a lawyer becoming a witness in a criminal case after a client has shared confidential information - you just can't do that. Your ethical obligation if your client confided in you that they were guilty would be to not represent that person.

I suppose, to take it to an extreme level - there are always anonymous calls. Though I seriously doubt many people would take it that far. For a start - you're placing the onus on the police to actually find the evidence because they are left without a witness or support re: evidence, etc. And, the psychologist would be well aware of their professional responsibilities and has agreed to them when taking on the job.

In short, I think (always exception to be found to each rule) confidentiality trumps.

 

[Jade-]

catjudo, please don't forget to ask while at your appointment today.