More handpicked essays just for you.
Principles of confidentiality
Theoretical perspective related to confidentiality
Principles of confidentiality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
[The case of Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), was a landmark case for patient privilege that was heard by the Supreme Court in 1996. The case brought up the issue of client privilege and whether a social worker and client’s relationship should be protected. The Supreme Court found in favor of Redmond in the case however, Justice Scalia dissented in the case. In this research his dissent will be explored and an argument for protection of the relationship between a social worker and their client will be made. [For the purpose of explaining the Supreme Court decision the case will be briefly explained. In June 1991, Mary Redmond was a police officer in Illinois that responded to a call of a fight at an apartment complex (Beyer, 2000). Redmond arrived to find Ricky Allen chasing another man and wielding a butcher knife (Beyer, 2000). Redmond repeatedly ordered Allen to drop the knife, but Allen did not comply (Beyer, 2000). It appeared that Allen was going to stab the man he was chasing, so Redmond shot Allen (Beyer, 2000). He succumbed to his wound and died at the scene (Beyer, 2000). [Ricky Allen’s mother, Mrs. Jaffe, …show more content…
Secondly, that psychotherapists do not differ from the rest of society, federal privilege was not necessary due to the state laws that already exist to cover the psychotherapy privilege (Cornell, 1996). Moreover, Justice Scalia was known to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, the fact that the majority decision was creating a ruling when Congress had declined to do so was cause for his dissent. As was the skill level of social workers and their professionalism (Cornell, 1996). In spite of the Justice’s opinion there are many people who feel that the psychotherapy relationship is one that deserves
In the past recent years, we have heard in the news around cases involving assault and battery cases involving professional athletes or other celebrity figures, however, it is “not uncommon in the sport and recreation environment for a person to be harmed as a result of another’s intentional conduct, both on and off the “field of play” Cotten & Wolohan, p. 214). Nonetheless, it is important to understand that the term “liability” is often not limited to athletes-as-combatants. For example, in Law for recreation & sport managers uses an example from page 215 that discusses a youth football game regarding how a referee was attacked by three coaches and also was tackled by a 14-year-old player, resulting in charges of felony battery. Thus, Hamakawa remarks to say, ”recreation and sport managers should be aware that their organizations are not immune from incidents involving participants, parents and other spectators, coaches, and officials, security
During this case, there was a lot of debate on whether or not the death sentence was considered a cruel and unusual punishment to give to a minor. Simmons had several appeals that went to state and federal courts. They lasted until 2002 but each appeal was rejected. These courts held that when someone commits a crime under the age of 18 and is sentenced to death, it violates the 8th and 14th amendment. Both amendments also prohibit the execution of a mentally retarded person. Simmons was speculated to have mental illnesses. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed and set aside Simmons’ death sentence in favor of life imprisonment without eligibility for release. Before Roper v. Simmons could be sent to the Supreme Court, a petition had to be made. The arguments for the
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
The case, Kansas v. Cheever, came about after Scott D. Cheever murdered Sheriff Matthew Samuels on January 19th, 2005. Samuels was with two of his deputies at the Cooper home in a rural part of Greenwood County, Kansas to execute a warrant for Scott Cheever’s arrest when Cheever shot and killed him. After Cheever was arrested, he was charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder and was also charged with various other drug charges and criminal possession of firearms. Cheever was first on trial in federal court because it was a capital case and Kansas had just ruled Capital punishment unconstitutional and was under then under review. Cheever used a voluntary intoxication defense claiming he was so high on methamphetamines he could not have premeditated the murder. In return the court ordered a mental...
Outside the courthouse in Newton, Georgia, in the early hours of January 30, 1943, Robert “Bobby” Hall was beaten unconscious by M. Claude Screws, Frank Edward Jones, and Jim Bob Kelley[1] while in their custody for the alleged theft of a tire;[2] Screws, Jones and Kelley were, respectively, Baker county sheriff, night policeman, and a civilian deputized specifically for the arrest.[3] Without ever recovering consciousness, Hall died as a result of a fractured skull shortly after his arrival at an Albany hospital that morning.[4] The NAACP and FBI investigated Hall’s death in the following months and federal charges were brought against Screws, Jones, and Kelley for violation of Section 20 of the Federal Criminal Code, which stipulates that no person may “under color of any law … willfully” deprive a person of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”[5] After being found guilty in the lower courts, the defendants brought their case to the Supreme Court on appeal, alleging that they had violated a state rather than federal law and, consequently, could not be held liable under Section 20. The Supreme Court’s central concern in Screws et al. v. United States was to interpret the intent and breadth of Section 20 in order to judge its constitutionality; in doing so, the Court struggled to reach a consensus regarding the definition of state action and the indefinite nature of the rights protected by the statute. Such consensus proved difficult, indeed, as the case was narrowly decided and divided the Court along deep constitutional lines; while a majority of the Court advocated reversal of the lower co...
A court case that made it to the Supreme Court was the case of Kevin Nigel Stanford, who was convicted in 1981 of a murder committed in Kentucky when he was 17 years and 4 months old. Stanford and an accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized a 20-year-old woman during the robbery of a gas station where she worked. The men took her to a wooded area, and Stanford shot her straight in the face, then in the back of the head, to prevent her from testifying against him. Stanford's case first came to the Supreme Court in 1989. In the decision Stanford vs. Kentucky, a narrow Supreme Court majority ruled the execution of death row inmates who killed before they were 18 was not then cruel and unusual punishment, following the 8th amendment of the Constitution.
During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was looked into by two key Supreme Court decisions. In District of Columbia v. Hel...
Willing, Richard. "Case Could Shape Future of Gun Control." Second Amendment Foundation Online. USA Today, 27 Aug. 1999. Web. 29 May 2010. .
Connor, the Supreme Court held that the test used for whether force was excessive should be “objective reasonableness” and not based on how much pain an officer inflicted upon a suspect. They remanded the case to a lower court based on their described standard. Under this standard (or test), officers have the right to used “reasonable” force in any interaction with the public. They are not obligated to use the least possible force as long as the force is objectively reasonable. The test indicates that the use of force should be from the perspective of the officer on the scene at the time and not in
National Association of Social Workers [NASW]. (1998). The New NASW Code of Ethics Can Be Your Ally: Part I. Retrieved from: http://www.naswma.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=96
As a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Chief of Social Work, he has limited time in a clinical setting. This can make a true analysis of NASW ethics in his situation difficult. With the increased responsibilities of his position he is not in the position of treatment, yet through the navigation of policies, he is ...
This essay will identify key issues facing the client system and will demonstrate an intervention plan. Followed by defining the purpose of social work and the identification of the AASW Code of Ethics, in regards to the case study. Lastly, key bodies of knowledge will be identified and applied to the case study.
Among an array of Values from The Code of Ethics (TCE) of social work Value 1 dictates that as social workers we must respect the dignity of our clients and refrain from passing judgement onto them (Canadian Association of Social Work, 2005, pg.7). As a social worker, it is important to follow this value as it prevents the distancing of the client from the worker as the client will have a better chance of opening up to someone who does not instantly tell them what to do or reprimand them for their actions or non-action in their lives. Oppression relates to the TCE in that it says the social work profession’s main purpose is to raise their clients who are vulnerable, oppressed and/or living in poverty (CASW, 2005, pg.7). Taking this into account
The social work profession and its Code of Ethics dictate that social workers must act in the best interest of the client, even when those actions challenge the practitioner’s personal, cultural and religious values. In practice; however, ethical decision-making is more complex than in theory. As helping professionals, social workers are constantly faced with ethical decision-making or ethical dilemmas. As noted by Banks (2005), an ethical dilemma occurs “when a worker is faced with a choice between two equally unwelcome alternatives that may involve a conflict of moral principles, and it is not clear what choice will be the right one” (as cited in McAuliffe & Chenoweth, 2008, p. 43). In addition, ethical decision-making is a process that
Her scientific casework methods are still used in assessing clients in today’s practice. The Social Work profession also built off her values of individuality, dignity, and importance of human relationships in the core values of the profession, these can be seen in the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics. While Social Workers still follow most of Richmond’s values today, other values have been re-evaluated as time has progressed. Instead of Richmond’s suggestions of gathering personal information without the client’s knowledge (Pumphrey, 1961), the Social Work profession now values confidentiality and privacy when dealing with clients.