Interoffice Memo Essay Example for Free

Interoffice Memo EssayYesterday, July 1, 1976, the rule in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of atomic number 20 was decided. The Supreme Court of California imposed a legal duty to psychotherapists, enforceable by a civil suit, to warn a person who may become a victim of a flushed act by a patient or if the patient threatens to harm themselves. As professionals in the benignant Service field it is necessary that we adhere to this when a client may threaten to hurt themselves or another person. With this ruling, and before any action is taken, we are reminded of our code 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 carry to not only assist our client but also, if threat is made, to assist and nourish a effectiveness victim. Once this threat is made, ethically, we have no option but to report it and to not do so, we spoil our code of ethics and the law. This case has made us aware of the fact that threats can and possibly go away 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 while we still protect our clients confidentiality and privacy, there is now an exception. If it is suspected that hazard or harm may occur to theclient or to others as a result of a clients behavior, the human 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 introduction to human services (7th ed.). Belmont, CABrooks/Cole Cengage Learning.