When a psychotherapist performs a risk assessment for homicide or suicide in the course of the course of providing treatment we look at 5 things.
While doing psychotherapy with someone I can tell them without doing harm that I will break confidentiality to keep them or other people safe.
i can safely tell a patient I am required to report child abuse. Ultimately who does not look for their therapist to be on the side of safety? Eventually, who is in favor of child abuse? In any event, we have what I believe is the crucial point about the SAFE Act. It’s an interesting fact that the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act enacted days prior to President Obama’s proposal strikes the wrong balance between treatment and reporting. Basically, whenever improving access to treatment ain’t addressed in general. When treatment and mandates to report are out of balance patients will suffer unnecessarily.
As a psychologist I look for to do my part.
To be honest I am a confidentiality realist.
No one wins. Actually, public safety may be undermined. Generally, my concern is simply that policies do no harm. To show why I used the image of the Rube Goldberg machine let me quote from The ‘EBulletin’ of the New York City State Psychiatric Association titled Secure Ammunition and Firearms Security Act and Duty to Warn. Remember, their description highlights what a convoluted procedural contraption this legislation has built. This is where it starts getting serious, right? More than not doing good, the SAFE Actwill likely do harm. Especially in close knit communities like a college campus, the news will spread with the speed and reach of aFacebook hoax that therapists are not to be trusted. Although, by emphasizing reporting at the expense of treatment, the SAFE Act has likely undermined both treatment and public safety. I would like to ask you something. Regarding the reporting on patients assessed as potentially violent?
Mental health problems have become central in discussions about how to reduce gun violence.