Interpretation Case Scenarios

This case study from the first paper through now has always left me questioning what was the right course of action, and what would be wrong to do. After reading how different classmates took the same information provided and concluded on how to respond I was somewhat amazed to see not only those who felt that ‘duty to warn and protect’ did not apply here, but even the differences in how those who did agree came to their conclusions as to why they would warn, and what other processes they would take.
The first reoccurring similarity that I noticed was the mention of Fla. Stat. § 491.0147, which is where confidentially can be waived when there appears to be an immediate probability of harm to either the patient or another individual(s). I feel
Seeing the various responses and insight to the same situation verified just how valuable consultation can be. Not everything is black and white, and given how I took this situation compared to those who chose to leave it as just a fantasy show that how we may proceed in our attempt to gain the best possible outcome may not always be the best approach. It is how we interpret the situation and how as a counselor we interpret the ethics and statues that dictate how we respond, and it’s with that, it would be best to seek consultation. I would want to change that about how I responded in my ethical dilemma part 1 and 2. Seeking the consultation holds the ability to offer an insight I may be missing, which could also be something I’m missing about my client as well which could aid with her mental
A few classmates did just that, oddly enough it was in reading the stipulations for baker acting that I began to question my response on how I would of preceded with this client. Which overall confused me because it did not state a significant difference to ‘duty to warn and protect’, just that when threatening harm to oneself or someone else that a person would receive a mental evaluation and treatment if necessary. I took the definition of threatening different here and my first thought was that the client had not really threatened harm but disclosed a fantasy, yet with ‘duty to warn and protect’ I took the same fantasy and a probable outcome because the fantasy held the probability to become real because there was ownership of a gun. Again, brining me back to interpretation, and just how simple wording or understanding can change