No abstract

Many North American jurisdictions permit involuntary psychiatric treatment to proceed only when a person lacks the capacity (or competence) to consent or when an emergency exists, even following lawful civil commitment. This may prevent the rapid commencement of treatment, but it shows considerable respect for personal autonomy, and it brings mental health law more into line with other branches of health care law. The authors examine how these issues are handled within European human rights law and within the civil codes and involuntary hospitalization laws of selected European nations. This material reveals that many different approaches are taken to the inclusion of incapacity principles within European civil commitment regimes. Reliance on incapacity criteria may lead to greater professional involvement by psychologists in involuntary treatment decisions.

This paper outlines the legal and ethical duties of psychologists in relation to preserving as well as breaching confidentiality in therapeutic relationships. It analyses the results of a questionnaire examining psychologists’ perceptions of the legal and ethical constraints on confidentiality and their likelihood of breaching confidentiality in different situations. The vast majority of participants indicated that the law permits them to disclose confidential information and that there is an ethical duty to disclose information to a third party when the patient is perceived to be dangerous. The results suggest that there is some uncertainty as to when confidentiality should be breached in practice and it is argued that the law is overly complex in this area and that guidelines are needed to assist psychologists in their clinical practice.

This paper outlines the legal and ethical du ties of psychologists in relation to preserving as well as breaching confidentiali ty in therapeutic relationships. It an alyses the resul ts of a questi onnaire examining psychologists' percep tions of the legal and ethical constraints on confi d entiality and their likel ihood of breaching confide ntiali ty in di ffe rent situations. The vast majority of participants indicated that the law permits them to d isclose confidential information an d that there is an ethical duty to disclose information to a third party when the patient is perceived to be dangerous. The results suggest that there is some uncertainty as to when confidentiali ty should be breached in practi ce and it is argued that the law is overly co mplex in thi area an d that guidelines are need ed to ass ist psychologists in their clini cal practice.