Professional Ethics, Notes Week 11 Part 2
Professional Ethics, Notes Week 11 Part 2 PHI 1120, Professional Ethics
Popular in Professional Ethics
PHI 1120, Professional Ethics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Chloe Luyet on Thursday March 31, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHI 1120, Professional Ethics at Wayne State University taught by Dr. Ryan Fanselow in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 19 views. For similar materials see Professional Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at Wayne State University.
Reviews for Professional Ethics, Notes Week 11 Part 2
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/31/16
Reading Quiz - Armstrong says that confidentiality is an example of Prima Facie duties. Learning Objectives: 1. Understand the reasons for confidentiality 2. Learn about some difficult cases 3. Be able to think about how to resolve conflicts regarding confidentiality I. A Consequence of Asymmetry a. deciding what to do as a professional requires putting together 2 types of information: i. Information about your client ii. Information about your profession b. Problems: i. only your client has #1 ii. only you have #2 iii. how to solve this? 1. Give your client info about the profession? a. NOT good idea…wouldn’t be possible to tell them everything 2. have client tell you about themself a. Better idea, but client may not want to say anything b/c they’re embarrassed, etc. 3. confidentiality is supposed to be a solution a. you agree that the client will give you info about themself b. and you, as the professional, will not reveal the info provided by the client c. w/o this clause, professionals cannot do their jobs properly and people (clients) would suffer d. it’s necessary b/c it insures that clients will reveal needed info PROS TO CONFIDENTIALITY CONS - future clients of - people/society could get therapists/other hurt professionals wouldn’t be - there could be a more trusted immediate Prima Facie duty - don’t always know if that should be addressed someone is telling the truth Puzzling Cases: 1) Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California a. conclusion: warn someone if client intends to hurt them 2) Lipari v. Sears Roebuck & Co. a. warn if someone is a threat to the general public 3) Fund of Funds v. Arthur Anderson Co. 4) Savings & Loans Crisis a. $124 billion-cost to taxpayers II. Conflicts of Duty a. 4 types of cases: (puzzling case) 1. There’s a high probability of major harm occurring 2. There’s a low probability of major harm occurring 3. There’s a high probability of minor harm occurring 4. There’s a low probability of minor harm occurring
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'