"Bulldust and nonsense" being perpetuated by Counselling Professional Association

The New Zealand Association of Counsellors, (NZAC), and Lawyer Kathryn Dalziel, are both dangerously wrong on issues of client confidentiality in Counselling, says Counsellor and Counselling Outcomes Researcher, Steve Taylor.

NZAC spokesperson Chris Hooker, is demonstrably and evidentially wrong in his claim that client confidentiality in Counselling has to be "absolutely protected", and Christchurch Lawyer Kathryn Dalziel is in dangerous error in her claim that Counsellors cannot breach client confidentiality if a client is suicidal" says Steve Taylor, Director of 24-7 Ltd, a private practice Counselling service in Greenlane, Auckland.

"I would have thought that a senior spokesperson for the NZAC and a Lawyer responsible for writing school policy for Boards of Trustees would have even a cursory understanding of the limits of confidentiality that exist in various forms both in a range of Codes of Ethics, and within Statute, including the Privacy Act, however this does not appear to be the case".

"A Counsellor is duty bound to breach client confidentiality when:

There is a risk of a client harming others.

There is a risk of a client harming themselves.

There is a risk of a client acting on Illegal intent.

There is a requirement by a Court to disclose confidential information.

An ethical Informed Consent process requires Counsellors to disclose these limits of confidentiality at the beginning of the first Counselling session - the type of "blanket" confidentiality being promoted to the public by the NZAC over the issue of teen privacy is simply bulldust and nonsense - such an ideology illegitimately separates young people from parents, families, and caregivers who most often care about them the most, and who are most often in the best position to provide the ongoing care and attention that a young person needs".

"It occurs to me that the NZAC are now vary rattled that the proverbial genie (the reality of the limits of confidentiality) is now out of the bottle, and that a number of their members may have opened themselves up to civil action as a result of believing a fantasy (blanket confidentiality), a myth perpetuated by their own Professional Association" says Mr Taylor.

"Many counsellors have been claiming an illegitimate authority in this area for many, many years, and it is time for them to side with the reality of what their own Code of Ethics and the Privacy Act actually says about the limits of confidentiality, and against their ideological preference for what they would like these documents to say, but don't" says Mr Taylor.

Client confidentiality is NOT ABSOLUTE.

ENDS

© Scoop Media