Press Release:

“Ideological Mythology” of blanket confidentiality in Counselling is placing families at risk, says Counselling Director and Counselling Outcomes Researcher.

Parents of school children being carted off to abortion clinics and medical services by ideological privacy zealots and ignorant, crusading Counsellors have every right to be angry with schools and school counsellors, says Steve Taylor, Director of 24-7 Ltd, a private Counselling practice located in Greenlane, Auckland.

“The fact is that no client of a Counsellor has a right to blanket confidentiality, and extreme care must be taken when the client is a young person, particularly a young person in crisis” says Mr Taylor.

“Exceptions to client confidentiality, recorded in a host of Code of Ethics within both voluntary –to-join and mandated-to-join Counselling and Psychological Professional Associations include harm to self; harm to others; disclosure of illegal intent; legal requirement to disclose, or a threat upon the clients wellbeing.

For any Counsellor (in the absence of a disclosure of severe parental abuse or abject neglect) to even briefly consider that they hold more authority in a decision for a young person than the young persons’ own parents is either personally ignorant, or professionally arrogant on behalf of the Counsellor– probably both”.

“For example, in a decision for a young person to have an abortion, it is not within a Counsellors mandate to play “in loco parentis” (Latin: in place of the parent) for the young person, but to first fully and conscientiously explain what options are available in terms of resolution, and then to collaboratively ascertain the level of risk to the young person as a result of them making each of these decisions. Any Counsellor familiar with the social contract a young persons’ family has with a school or intervention agency, any Counsellor familiar with the risk of post-abortion trauma, and any Counsellor familiar with the importance that various New Zealand Statutes place on reinforcing family involvement with young people in crisis would be loathe to drive a wedge between the young person and their parents by “playing god” with the life of a vulnerable young person on an issue such as abortion, by unilaterally decreeing that the Counsellor knows better than the real experts in a young persons’ life about a crisis issue, namely their parents”.

“It seems that a number of Counsellors in New Zealand (particularly in schools) are unable to distinguish the difference between counselling and rescuing – the first involves a mature, considered, and systemically informed, research-based perspective of all of the information available; the second is simply most often a personal emotional-echo response to their own unresolved trauma – the latter individuals are perhaps some of the most concerning to the profession, as they will project their own pain onto the lives of their clients, and then attempt to act in their own best interests, losing sight of what is actually in the best interests of their client”.

“As a double-degree qualified Counsellor who has spent 14 years working with young people, I summarily reject the opinion of Christchurch lawyer Kathryn Dalziel, author of “Privacy in Schools: A guide to the Privacy Act for principals, teachers and boards of trustees” where Ms Dalziel states that a counsellor would need the consent of the young person before they could share information with a parent or the school. A major part of a counsellors role is to assess risk, and a counsellor is duty bound to breach client confidentiality if the risk to the client is greater in secret than in disclosure”.

“In my 14 years experience, the gravity that a young person gives to parental response to an issue of crisis is always much higher than the reality of a parents actual response – often, the young person is filtering their parents response through the young person’s own understandable anxiety about the issue at hand”.

“The Counselling Outcome Research is also pretty clear: Privacy is not actually the main concern regarding client disclosure of issues to a Counsellor: while privacy is indeed important, it is the nature and depth of the therapeutic alliance, coupled with the faith, hope, and expectancy a client may have in a Counsellor to be trusted to assist them in crisis towards a positive outcome that is the most cogent influence on disclosure”.

“We also know from longitudinal neurological research that a young person’s brain doesn’t fully mature until around age 25, so for a counsellor to assume that a young person in crisis has the mature capacity to make what may be life-changing decisions in their life in the absence of the love and support of those closest to them is beyond reason”.

“In my opinion, Counsellors who therefore isolate a young person from their primary emotional, physiological, and psychological support (i.e. their families) in times of crisis are dangerously irresponsible, and have no business working anywhere near people in need. Counsellors need to remember that they have a temporary presence in a clients life – families however, are forever”.

ENDS

© Scoop Media