to articulate the specificity of psychoanalytic confidentiality, the results have generally been in favour of respecting the analytic relationship. The general point for which we are arguing is that analysts should have the right to make their own decisions based on each individual treatment. Whenever pertinent, analysts should be encouraged to consult appropriately in arriving at a decision. It is not part of IPA policy that members should automatically accept third-party demands that could have considerable consequences for the course of treatment. There are documented examples in all regions of negative and even disastrous consequences for children and adults when a hasty reporting in accordance with legal requirements has been made. The Tarasoff cases ( Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of California , 1976), which became the spur to much American and Canadian reporting legislation, provide an example of this. See also Garner v. Stone , 1999; and Vitelli , 2014. These conclusions are consonant with the advice received from the UK barrister and expert on data protection consulted by the IPA (see Proops, 2017). Though limited to the European context, the conclusions of the Proops report, especially the sections on Litigation/Disclosure (sections 48-53) and the Reporting Issue (sections 54-58), support our recommendations, and also the proposals quoted above by the Ethics Committee. In 2005 the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) recommended the adoption of a discretionary privilege for confidential relationships, one that might also be asserted in legal proceedings on behalf of a child, if deemed in the child’s best interests. Like our committee, the ALRC believes that the fact that the claimed privilege is discretionary allows the affected parties to be able to make an argument as to why the material should be or should not be disclosed, thus permitting a judge to reject illegitimate attempts to claim the privilege (ALRC, 2005, section 15).
28
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator