Is a psychologist allowed to warn a third party if a patient poses a credible threat?

In situations where a patient poses a credible threat to a third party, psychologists have a legal and ethical obligation to take necessary steps to protect that individual. This includes the ability to disclose confidential information to warn a potential victim or authorities. The principle here is rooted in the duty to protect, which has been recognized in various legal precedents and ethical guidelines.

When a psychologist determines that a patient is expressing a credible threat of violence, they are permitted to break confidentiality to alert the potential victim or law enforcement, making this disclosure a key aspect of their responsibility to ensure safety. This exception to the confidentiality rule underscores the paramount importance of preventing harm to others, balancing the patient's right to confidentiality with the need to protect individuals at risk.

The other options suggest that confidentiality is absolute or contingent upon patient consent, which doesn't consider this specific ethical obligation to protect potential victims in cases of credible threats. Ethical guidelines explicitly allow for such disclosures in scenarios where there is a clear risk of harm, emphasizing the professional duty of psychologists to prioritize safety alongside confidentiality.