Problem:
A 19-year-old male university student from a Middle Eastern background was referred by his GP for anxiety and panic-related symptoms. He resides with his family and attended the session alongside his older brother. The session was the provisional psychologist's fourth intake of the day.
At the outset, the provisional psychologist made a culturally generalising comment, assuming the brother's presence was culturally expected and welcomed. The client, however, asserted his preference to speak independently. The brother then minimised the client's difficulties, describing him as overly sensitive and prone to worry. The psychologist responded by normalising this, attributing it to the client's age without further exploration.
Later in the session, the client disclosed experiencing panic attacks and engaging in self-harm, while explicitly stating he did not wish his parents to be informed. Despite recognising the seriousness of this disclosure, the psychologist - fatigued from a demanding day - offered brief reassurance and redirected to coping strategies, intending to conduct a thorough risk assessment at a future appointment. Confidentiality boundaries were never discussed or clarified with the client. Need Assignment Help?
Post-Session:
At the end of the day, the psychologist contacted the client's father by phone, disclosing that the client was experiencing anxiety. This action was not supported by supervisor consultation or documented clinical reasoning, and was rationalised by the psychologist as a means of alleviating family stress.
Work through one ethical dilemma using an adapted version of the Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (KKS) ethical decision-making model.