Study for the Law and Ethics Exam. Master legal concepts with flashcards and multiple choice questions, each with insights and explanations. Boost your exam readiness!

Each practice test/flash card set has 50 randomly selected questions from a bank of over 500. You'll get a new set of questions each time!

Practice this question and more.


What actions should a therapist take if a client communicates a serious threat to an identifiable victim?

  1. Inform the client's family

  2. Warn the identified victim and law enforcement

  3. Advise the client to resolve the issue

  4. Contact the victim's lawyer

The correct answer is: Warn the identified victim and law enforcement

In a scenario where a client communicates a serious threat to an identifiable victim, the most appropriate action a therapist should take is to warn the identified victim and law enforcement. This response is based on the ethical and legal duty of the therapist to protect potential victims from harm, which is a fundamental principle in the field of mental health. When a therapist becomes aware of a credible threat, they have a responsibility to take immediate action to prevent harm. This often involves breaching confidentiality, which is typically upheld in therapeutic relationships, but is overridden when there is a clear and imminent danger to an individual. By notifying the victim and law enforcement, the therapist helps to initiate protective measures and ensures that the situation is addressed by appropriate authorities, who can manage the risk effectively. The other options do not align with the core duty of care that therapists owe to potential victims. Informing the client's family may not directly address the threat and could lead to further complications or escalation. Advising the client to resolve the issue places the onus on the client to manage a situation that poses a significant risk to another individual and fails to adequately protect that individual. Contacting the victim's lawyer does not provide immediate safety and may complicate the legal implications of the threat without offering timely intervention