Citation

Budai P. Aust. N. Zeal. J. Psychiatry 1996; 30(6): 794-804.

Affiliation

Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

9034469

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To set out correctly the law on mandatory reporting of child abuse in each Australian jurisdiction and New Zealand; to argue that all patients should be forewarned of the limits of confidentiality in respect of this; and to discuss the question of whether mandatory reporting is in the best interests of the child. METHOD: Discussion of statutes mandating reporting of child abuse, duty of confidentiality, the experience of mandatory reporting and failure to comply, forewarning of limits of confidentiality, arguments for and against mandatory reporting, and alternatives. RESULTS: Not all mental health providers comply with the law, for reasons both altruistic and non-altruistic. Although ethical codes for Australian mental health providers do not require forewarning, ethical practice would seem to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory reporting statutes now in force are not necessarily in the best interests of the child. An important clinical implication of the law is that considerations should be given to forewarning patients.

Language: en