TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,707
Ah, the common yet important word in many fields, be it legal, mental health, healthcare, business, and more. Anyways, I'm sure all of who have seen any healthcare professional as well as mental healthcare professionals (MHPs) know and hear about this term before. Especially when interacting with MHPs. When you first see them, most of them usually have some confidentiality agreement form that you sign, which mentions that anything you say would be between you and the MHP, except in certain scenarios, but not limited to: child/elder abuse, abuse of a disabled person, court-orders and subpoenas of records, danger to self or others, to name a few.
However, these "exceptions" are rather broad and gives the MHP wide latitude in using their professional judgment and discretion (again, their professional opinion and judgment). This is even more pronounced in the last two decades, due to Columbine, 9/11, Virginia Tech, and various other incidents. It all started off from the Tarasoff case in 1969. Then it became a duty to warn for danger (which again, has wide latitude and the patient is at the mercy and discretion of the MHP). While I never (in the years which I saw MHPs and what not) had them breach confidentiality, in the latter years, especially in the previous half decade (2015-2018), I had some uncomfortable close calls where the conservation shifted into probing and risk assessments (I was already feeling uncomfortable at that point). Also, my experiences are not unfounded as I've read stories (both here, on Reddit, and various articles and social media posts) of people experiencing and sharing similar sentiments that match my observations and experiences. With all that considered, this makes almost any talk of any danger, even if not an outright threats (even just hypotheticals) or actual plans to already be very risky as it could easily fall under the danger and harm part. Note: I am not saying people should not go seek professional help if they choose to, but they should be aware of the risks and consequences for saying the wrong things. Also, I'm just pointing out and exposing the fact that 'confidentiality' is overrated and gives a false sense of security.
Now I get that a bunch of ignorant people claim that "well if they breach confidentiality without it falling under those exceptions" then you could take legal action against them as well as report them to their overseeing organization (licensure boards, professional organizations, etc.). In theory, yes that is true and can (occasionally) happen, but in practice no. This is because these MHPs have very wide latitude and flexibility in reporting, that they would rather be "safe" than sorry. It doesn't matter that there is a false positive for the rare exception (the actual patient that is actually dangerous). Already, the patient is at a disadvantage because the public as well as the legal system would more likely trust the person with an authority (the MHP) and take his/her word over the patient. A patient would have an uphill battle to fight that isn't in his/her favor, let alone seeking a settlement or getting justice. So not only is there is a legal and civil duty to do so along (with the hefty penalties for failing to do so), the pro-life culture and sentiments as well as their training (which emphasizes various false misconceptions that I won't elaborate here as I've had other topics on this), and a business perspective (gotta have returning patients and feed the psychiatric industry as much as possible) are all factors that make confidentiality much less viable than what people believe to be.
Therefore, in conclusion "confidentiality" is really overrated and not as powerful as this "magical, mystical" shield that most people made it out to be. It is rather a false sense of security. This is because it is very easy to say something that is bordering on harm or danger and immediately, the MHP starts to do a risk assessment on the spot (while ignoring the real content of the conversation and patient's grievances, problems, and what not). Not to mention that since most topics still revolve around potential harm to self or others, or at least the other topics that eventually lead into those serious topics, the risk is just far too great to chance. They hold the authority to take away your civil liberty and freedom, as well as your credibility (claiming you as irrational, not of sound mind, and/or mentally ill), which is why I refer to them in another thread about how they almost like law plainclothes detectives/interrogators looking for stuff to use against you. So unless you talk about non-serious, innocuous subjects and just shoot the shit, then there is always a risk of your confidentiality broken or worse, being detained against your will "for your own good, at the mercy of the MHP and the MHS (Mental health system).
However, these "exceptions" are rather broad and gives the MHP wide latitude in using their professional judgment and discretion (again, their professional opinion and judgment). This is even more pronounced in the last two decades, due to Columbine, 9/11, Virginia Tech, and various other incidents. It all started off from the Tarasoff case in 1969. Then it became a duty to warn for danger (which again, has wide latitude and the patient is at the mercy and discretion of the MHP). While I never (in the years which I saw MHPs and what not) had them breach confidentiality, in the latter years, especially in the previous half decade (2015-2018), I had some uncomfortable close calls where the conservation shifted into probing and risk assessments (I was already feeling uncomfortable at that point). Also, my experiences are not unfounded as I've read stories (both here, on Reddit, and various articles and social media posts) of people experiencing and sharing similar sentiments that match my observations and experiences. With all that considered, this makes almost any talk of any danger, even if not an outright threats (even just hypotheticals) or actual plans to already be very risky as it could easily fall under the danger and harm part. Note: I am not saying people should not go seek professional help if they choose to, but they should be aware of the risks and consequences for saying the wrong things. Also, I'm just pointing out and exposing the fact that 'confidentiality' is overrated and gives a false sense of security.
Now I get that a bunch of ignorant people claim that "well if they breach confidentiality without it falling under those exceptions" then you could take legal action against them as well as report them to their overseeing organization (licensure boards, professional organizations, etc.). In theory, yes that is true and can (occasionally) happen, but in practice no. This is because these MHPs have very wide latitude and flexibility in reporting, that they would rather be "safe" than sorry. It doesn't matter that there is a false positive for the rare exception (the actual patient that is actually dangerous). Already, the patient is at a disadvantage because the public as well as the legal system would more likely trust the person with an authority (the MHP) and take his/her word over the patient. A patient would have an uphill battle to fight that isn't in his/her favor, let alone seeking a settlement or getting justice. So not only is there is a legal and civil duty to do so along (with the hefty penalties for failing to do so), the pro-life culture and sentiments as well as their training (which emphasizes various false misconceptions that I won't elaborate here as I've had other topics on this), and a business perspective (gotta have returning patients and feed the psychiatric industry as much as possible) are all factors that make confidentiality much less viable than what people believe to be.
Therefore, in conclusion "confidentiality" is really overrated and not as powerful as this "magical, mystical" shield that most people made it out to be. It is rather a false sense of security. This is because it is very easy to say something that is bordering on harm or danger and immediately, the MHP starts to do a risk assessment on the spot (while ignoring the real content of the conversation and patient's grievances, problems, and what not). Not to mention that since most topics still revolve around potential harm to self or others, or at least the other topics that eventually lead into those serious topics, the risk is just far too great to chance. They hold the authority to take away your civil liberty and freedom, as well as your credibility (claiming you as irrational, not of sound mind, and/or mentally ill), which is why I refer to them in another thread about how they almost like law plainclothes detectives/interrogators looking for stuff to use against you. So unless you talk about non-serious, innocuous subjects and just shoot the shit, then there is always a risk of your confidentiality broken or worse, being detained against your will "for your own good, at the mercy of the MHP and the MHS (Mental health system).
Last edited:
