Duty to Warn

      Recent tragedies have led lawmakers and other officials to call for revisions to 'squeeze' confidentiality in special circumstances. This would expand the data gathering role of mental health professionals in service of the duty to warn and protect. Defenders of current standards argue that to compromise confidentiality is to weaken one of the basic tenets of mental health. They argue that expanding the duty to warn and protect turns mental health too far in the direction of law enforcement, and negatively impacts the rights of patients. Find out and consider Washington D.C. state laws regarding the duty to warn and protect and answer the following questions: Explain your state’s statute and any case law, if any, on the duty to warn/protect standard. Using reputable literature to support your answer, comment on whether you think the statute goes too far, or not far enough in the practice of the duty to warn and protect in balancing confidentiality, helping patients/clients, and protecting the public. Using reputable literature to support your answer, whether the standard in your state should be amended and why.