CAADC Exam Free Practice Questions

The ethical decision-making process in substance abuse counseling is complex and requires a systematic approach. When faced with conflicting ethical obligations, a counselor should prioritize the well-being and safety of the client while adhering to legal and ethical standards. In this scenario, the counselor is faced with a conflict between maintaining client confidentiality and the potential harm to a third party. Following an ethical decision-making model, the counselor should first identify the ethical dilemma, which is the conflict between confidentiality and the duty to protect. Next, the counselor should consult relevant ethical codes and legal standards, such as the ACA Code of Ethics and Georgia state laws regarding duty to warn. The counselor should then consider the potential consequences of each course of action, including the impact on the client, the third party, and the counselor’s professional reputation. After careful consideration, the counselor should choose the course of action that is most likely to promote the client’s well-being while minimizing harm to others. In this case, the counselor should first attempt to persuade the client to disclose the information to the intended victim. If the client refuses, the counselor should consider breaching confidentiality to warn the intended victim, but only after consulting with a supervisor or legal counsel and determining that there is a clear and imminent danger. Documenting the entire decision-making process is crucial for accountability and legal protection.

The Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapists mandates specific ethical guidelines for Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselors (LADCs). These guidelines prioritize client welfare and autonomy, necessitating informed consent for all treatment aspects. In this scenario, a client’s refusal to participate in a recommended component of treatment raises an ethical dilemma. Ethically, counselors must respect the client’s autonomy and right to self-determination. This principle is enshrined in ethical codes that emphasize client choice and participation in treatment planning. While evidence-based practices are crucial, they should not override a client’s informed decision. The counselor’s role is to provide information about the potential benefits of the treatment component, address any concerns the client may have, and explore alternative approaches that align with the client’s preferences and goals. Forcing or coercing a client into a specific treatment component violates their autonomy and undermines the therapeutic relationship. Documentation of the client’s refusal, the reasons behind it, and any alternative approaches discussed is essential for maintaining ethical and legal standards. Therefore, the most ethical course of action is to respect the client’s decision, explore alternative approaches, and document the process thoroughly.

In Georgia, dual relationships are ethically problematic for CADCs because they compromise objectivity, create conflicts of interest, and exploit the power imbalance inherent in the counselor-client relationship. A dual relationship occurs when a counselor has a second, significantly different relationship with a client, such as being a friend, business partner, or family member. These relationships can blur boundaries, impair professional judgment, and increase the risk of harm to the client. Georgia’s ethical guidelines strictly prohibit dual relationships that could exploit or harm clients. Counselors must avoid entering into such relationships and take steps to terminate existing ones when they become problematic. Consulting with supervisors and seeking legal advice is crucial when navigating complex boundary issues to ensure ethical and legal compliance.

In Georgia, a CADC encounters a complex ethical dilemma when a client, Imani, reveals during a counseling session that she relapsed after 6 months of sobriety. Imani admits to using heroin but begs the counselor not to disclose this information to her drug court officer, as it would result in immediate incarceration. The counselor must navigate the tension between maintaining client confidentiality, mandated reporting obligations, and the potential consequences for Imani. Georgia law requires CADCs to report any information concerning a client’s commission of a crime. However, 42 CFR Part 2 protects the confidentiality of substance use disorder patient records, with specific exceptions. In this case, the counselor must consider whether Imani’s heroin use constitutes a threat to herself or others. If the counselor assesses that Imani is an immediate danger to herself or others, they have a duty to warn and protect, which overrides confidentiality. If the counselor determines that Imani does not pose an immediate threat, they must carefully weigh the ethical implications of breaching confidentiality versus the legal requirements of mandated reporting. The counselor should document the decision-making process, including the rationale for the chosen course of action, and consult with a supervisor or ethics committee for guidance.

The ethical imperative for a CADC in Georgia to report suspected child abuse stems from several sources, primarily state law and professional ethical codes. Georgia’s mandated reporting laws (O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5) require professionals who have reasonable cause to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect to report it to the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS). This legal obligation overrides confidentiality in situations where a child’s safety is at risk. Furthermore, ethical guidelines for counselors, such as those provided by the National Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors (NAADAC), emphasize the counselor’s responsibility to protect vulnerable populations, including children. Failing to report suspected child abuse could result in legal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as ethical sanctions from professional licensing boards. The duty to report is triggered when the counselor has a reasonable belief, meaning that the information available to them would lead a reasonable person to suspect abuse or neglect. The report should include all relevant information known to the counselor, such as the child’s name, the name of the alleged abuser, and details of the suspected abuse.

In Georgia, a CADC encountering a situation where a client, Maria, who is mandated to treatment by the court due to a DUI, reveals during a session that she relapsed over the weekend and drove while under the influence, faces a complex ethical and legal dilemma. The core issue revolves around the balance between confidentiality and the duty to protect. While client confidentiality is paramount, it is not absolute, especially when state laws and ethical guidelines mandate reporting under specific circumstances. In Georgia, counselors are generally required to report instances where a client poses an imminent threat to themselves or others. Driving under the influence, especially after acknowledging it in a counseling session, can be interpreted as posing a significant risk to public safety. Therefore, the CADC must navigate this situation by first consulting with a supervisor or legal counsel to determine the specific legal obligations in Georgia regarding reporting such incidents. This consultation will help clarify whether the counselor is legally mandated to report Maria’s relapse and DUI to the court or other relevant authorities. If reporting is deemed necessary, the counselor should inform Maria of their intention to do so, explaining the legal and ethical reasons behind the decision. This transparency is crucial in maintaining a therapeutic relationship, even when confidentiality must be breached. Furthermore, the counselor should work with Maria to develop a safety plan to prevent future relapses and ensure she does not drive under the influence again. This plan may include increased monitoring, support group attendance, and exploring alternative transportation options. The counselor must also document all actions taken, including the consultation, the decision-making process, and the communication with Maria. This documentation serves as evidence of the counselor’s adherence to ethical and legal standards. Failure to properly address this situation could result in legal consequences for the counselor, as well as potential harm to Maria and the public.

In Georgia, a CADC encountering a situation where a client, during a group therapy session, discloses active plans to harm another individual presents a complex ethical and legal challenge. The core principle at stake is confidentiality, a cornerstone of the therapeutic relationship. However, this principle is not absolute and is superseded by the duty to protect when a client poses a credible and imminent threat to a clearly identified victim. Georgia law aligns with the national standard, permitting (and in some cases, mandating) the disclosure of confidential information to prevent serious harm. This is often referred to as the “duty to warn,” stemming from the landmark Tarasoff case. The CADC must first assess the credibility and immediacy of the threat. This involves evaluating the client’s history of violence, the specificity of the plan, and the client’s current mental state. If the threat is deemed credible and imminent, the CADC is ethically and potentially legally obligated to take action. This action typically involves informing the intended victim and/or law enforcement. The CADC should document the assessment process, the rationale for the decision to breach confidentiality, and the steps taken to protect the intended victim. Consulting with a supervisor or legal counsel is highly recommended to ensure compliance with Georgia law and ethical guidelines. The decision to breach confidentiality should be made carefully, considering the potential impact on the client-therapist relationship and the client’s future willingness to seek treatment. However, the safety of the potential victim must take precedence. Therefore, the most appropriate course of action is to report the threat to both the potential victim and law enforcement after careful assessment and documentation.

Ethical decision-making models provide a structured approach to resolving ethical dilemmas. These models typically involve identifying the ethical issues, reviewing relevant ethical codes and laws, considering the potential consequences of different courses of action, consulting with supervisors or colleagues, and selecting the course of action that is most ethically justifiable. In Georgia, CADCs are expected to utilize an ethical decision-making model when faced with complex ethical challenges. These models help to ensure that decisions are made in a thoughtful, deliberate, and ethical manner, rather than based on impulse or personal biases. Documentation of the decision-making process is also crucial for accountability and transparency.

The Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapists mandates adherence to specific ethical guidelines concerning client confidentiality, particularly regarding disclosures to third parties. While counselors are obligated to protect client confidentiality, exceptions exist when mandated by law or when there is a risk of harm to the client or others. In cases where a client presents a serious risk of harming another person, the counselor has a duty to protect that potential victim. This duty may involve disclosing confidential information to the intended victim, law enforcement, or other relevant parties to prevent harm. The decision to disclose confidential information in such situations must be made carefully, considering the potential consequences for both the client and the intended victim. Counselors should consult with supervisors, colleagues, or legal counsel when faced with difficult ethical dilemmas. The concept of “duty to warn” or “duty to protect” is a legal and ethical principle that requires mental health professionals to take action to prevent harm to third parties when a client poses a credible threat. This principle is rooted in the landmark case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, which established the legal responsibility of therapists to protect individuals who are being threatened by their clients. The specific requirements and limitations of the duty to warn may vary depending on state laws and professional ethical codes.

The Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapists mandates specific ethical guidelines for CADCs. Understanding these guidelines requires more than memorization; it demands the ability to apply ethical principles to complex situations. This scenario tests the candidate’s understanding of dual relationships, informed consent, and client autonomy within the context of Georgia’s regulations. The correct approach involves prioritizing the client’s well-being and adhering to the ethical code, even when faced with conflicting personal feelings or perceived client needs. A key concept here is the power differential inherent in the counselor-client relationship. Engaging in a business venture, even if seemingly beneficial, blurs boundaries and compromises objectivity. Informed consent requires clear communication about potential risks and benefits, but it does not override the ethical obligation to avoid harmful dual relationships. The best course of action is to acknowledge the client’s interest, gently decline the business proposal, and explore alternative ways to support their entrepreneurial aspirations that do not involve a conflict of interest. This upholds the counselor’s ethical responsibility to maintain professional boundaries and prioritize the client’s welfare.

Cultural competence in substance use counseling involves understanding and respecting the diverse cultural backgrounds, beliefs, values, and experiences of clients. It requires counselors to be aware of their own cultural biases and assumptions and how these might impact their interactions with clients from different cultures. Culturally competent counselors adapt their counseling approaches to meet the specific needs of each client, taking into account factors such as ethnicity, race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and disability. This includes using culturally appropriate language, incorporating cultural values into treatment plans, and seeking consultation or supervision when working with clients from unfamiliar cultural backgrounds. Addressing issues of discrimination, oppression, and historical trauma is also essential. The goal is to provide equitable and effective services that promote client well-being and recovery.

Ethical decision-making in substance abuse counseling is complex, requiring a structured approach. The scenario highlights a conflict between a counselor’s duty to protect client confidentiality and the potential harm the client poses to themselves or others. Georgia law and ethical guidelines prioritize client safety. When a client expresses intent to harm themselves or others, counselors have a duty to warn and protect, which may involve breaching confidentiality. The specific steps a counselor should take in such a situation are: assessing the immediacy and severity of the threat, consulting with supervisors or colleagues, and, if the threat is imminent, contacting the appropriate authorities (e.g., law enforcement, crisis intervention services). This process should be documented thoroughly. The counselor must adhere to Georgia’s specific regulations regarding duty to warn, balancing client autonomy with the responsibility to prevent harm. Simply encouraging the client to seek voluntary hospitalization might be insufficient if the threat is immediate. Ignoring the threat would be unethical and potentially illegal. Reporting to the client’s family without the client’s consent is generally a breach of confidentiality unless there are specific legal exceptions, such as the client being a minor or legally incompetent.

The Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapists mandates specific ethical guidelines for CADCs. These guidelines emphasize client autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and fidelity. In the scenario, Keisha’s supervisor is pressuring her to prematurely discharge clients who have reached their insurance limit, regardless of their treatment progress. This directly violates the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the best interest of the client) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). Prematurely terminating treatment based solely on insurance limitations can lead to relapse, destabilization, and a lack of continuity of care, all of which are harmful to the client. Additionally, it undermines client autonomy by not allowing them to fully participate in decisions about their treatment. Keisha has a professional responsibility to advocate for her clients’ needs and to uphold ethical standards, even when facing pressure from her supervisor. Consulting with a professional ethics board or seeking legal counsel may be necessary to navigate this complex situation and protect her clients’ well-being while adhering to Georgia’s ethical and legal requirements for CADCs. The correct course of action is to prioritize the client’s well-being and advocate against practices that compromise ethical standards.

Georgia’s regulations surrounding confidentiality for CADCs are primarily guided by both state laws and federal regulations, particularly 42 CFR Part 2, which governs the confidentiality of substance use disorder patient records. In a scenario where a client, Imani, discloses past child abuse that occurred in another state and does not present an immediate threat to herself or others in Georgia, the CADC’s reporting obligations are complex. While Georgia is a mandatory reporting state for current child abuse, the situation described involves *past* abuse that occurred *outside* of Georgia. The critical factor is whether Imani’s disclosure constitutes a reasonable suspicion of ongoing risk to a child’s safety. If Imani’s disclosure does not indicate any current or ongoing risk to a child within Georgia, mandatory reporting laws in Georgia would not be triggered. The CADC’s ethical obligation is to prioritize Imani’s confidentiality while also considering the safety and well-being of potential victims. The best course of action involves exploring the situation further with Imani, documenting the disclosure and the rationale for not reporting, and consulting with a supervisor or legal counsel to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and ethical standards. It’s important to note that ethical decision-making models emphasize a balance between client autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. In this case, respecting Imani’s autonomy and maintaining confidentiality must be weighed against the potential need to protect children from harm. The CADC should also be aware of any specific agency policies or procedures related to reporting suspected child abuse.

This scenario tests the candidate’s understanding of informed consent and client rights, particularly concerning the use of telehealth in Georgia. Georgia law and ethical guidelines require that clients provide informed consent before engaging in telehealth services, including understanding the potential risks and benefits, confidentiality protocols, and emergency procedures. Option B is incorrect because while assessing the client’s technological literacy is important, it doesn’t fulfill the requirement of obtaining informed consent. Option C is incorrect because while ensuring a secure platform is crucial, it’s only one aspect of informed consent. Option D is incorrect because while explaining the counselor’s qualifications is necessary, it’s not specific to the telehealth context and doesn’t cover the unique aspects of informed consent for telehealth. The most appropriate action is to provide a detailed explanation of the telehealth process, including potential risks and benefits, confidentiality protocols, and emergency procedures, and obtain the client’s informed consent before commencing telehealth sessions, ensuring compliance with Georgia law and ethical standards. This requires the CADC to be knowledgeable about telehealth regulations and to prioritize client autonomy and informed decision-making.

The ethical obligation to report suspected child abuse or neglect is paramount, overriding confidentiality in Georgia. This duty is legally mandated to protect vulnerable children from harm. A CADC in Georgia is considered a mandated reporter. Failing to report suspected abuse can result in legal penalties and ethical sanctions. The CADC’s primary responsibility is to the safety and well-being of the child. While gathering more information might seem helpful, delaying the report to investigate further could place the child at greater risk. Consulting with a supervisor is a good practice but should not delay the immediate reporting obligation. Notifying the parents first would compromise the investigation and potentially endanger the child. Therefore, the CADC must immediately report the suspicion to the appropriate authorities, such as the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) or law enforcement. This action aligns with both legal requirements and ethical guidelines for mandated reporters in Georgia. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is key here; the CADC does not need definitive proof, only a reasonable belief that abuse or neglect has occurred.

Georgia’s statutes and ethical guidelines for CADCs emphasize client autonomy and informed consent, especially when dealing with potentially vulnerable individuals. The scenario highlights a situation where a client, potentially influenced by their family’s wishes, may not be fully exercising their own agency in treatment decisions. The ethical imperative is to ensure the client’s decision is truly voluntary and informed, aligning with the principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest) and autonomy (respecting the client’s self-determination). A CADC must thoroughly explore the client’s understanding of the treatment options, potential benefits, and risks, and ensure the client is free from coercion. This requires skillful communication, exploration of ambivalence, and documentation of the process. Consulting with a supervisor is crucial to navigate this complex ethical dilemma, ensuring adherence to professional standards and legal requirements in Georgia. The primary focus is to empower the client to make an informed decision that aligns with their own values and goals, rather than succumbing to external pressures. The role of the CADC is to facilitate this process, respecting the client’s right to self-determination while providing the necessary information and support.

According to Georgia law and ethical standards for CADCs, client confidentiality is paramount. However, there are specific exceptions, including mandated reporting requirements. One such requirement involves situations where a client presents an imminent threat to themselves or others. This duty to warn and protect supersedes confidentiality. In this scenario, Tasha, a CADC in Georgia, has a client, David, who expresses a clear and immediate intent to harm his estranged wife. Tasha’s ethical and legal obligation is to take action to prevent harm. This includes notifying the intended victim and law enforcement. Failing to do so would not only violate ethical standards but also potentially expose Tasha to legal liability. The importance of documentation is also key. A CADC must meticulously document the client’s statements, the assessment of risk, and the actions taken to ensure proper legal and ethical compliance. Consultation with a supervisor or legal counsel is advisable to ensure the appropriate steps are taken. This balances client confidentiality with the legal and ethical duty to protect potential victims from harm. The standard of “imminent threat” is critical; vague or unsubstantiated threats may not trigger the same reporting obligation.

Informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle in counseling, ensuring that clients have the right to make informed decisions about their treatment. It involves providing clients with comprehensive information about the nature of the counseling process, potential risks and benefits, alternative treatment options, confidentiality policies, and their rights as clients. To obtain valid informed consent, counselors must ensure that clients have the capacity to understand the information being presented, that they are making the decision voluntarily without coercion or undue influence, and that they are fully informed about all relevant aspects of the treatment. In Georgia, the rules and regulations for CADCs specifically require counselors to obtain informed consent from clients before initiating treatment. This includes providing clients with a written statement of their rights as clients, as well as a clear explanation of the counselor’s qualifications, fees, and cancellation policies. When working with clients who have co-occurring mental health disorders, counselors must also provide information about the potential interactions between substance use and mental health symptoms, as well as the availability of integrated treatment approaches.

In Georgia, a CADC encountering a situation where a client, during a group therapy session, reveals intentions to harm another individual presents a complex ethical and legal dilemma. The core principle of confidentiality, deeply embedded in counseling ethics and specifically addressed in Georgia’s regulations governing substance abuse counselors, is challenged by the duty to protect potential victims. While confidentiality is paramount, it is not absolute. Georgia law mandates reporting when a client poses an imminent threat to themselves or others. This “duty to warn” or “duty to protect,” stemming from the Tarasoff ruling and adapted into state law, requires the counselor to take reasonable steps to prevent the threatened harm. These steps may include notifying the intended victim, informing law enforcement, or taking other actions necessary to ensure safety. Simply documenting the threat in the client’s file, while important for record-keeping, is insufficient. Seeking supervision is a prudent step, but it does not absolve the counselor of their immediate responsibility to act. Maintaining confidentiality without intervention would be a direct violation of the counselor’s ethical and legal obligations in Georgia, potentially leading to legal repercussions and harm to the intended victim. The counselor’s primary responsibility is to prioritize the safety of all involved, even if it means breaching confidentiality within the defined legal and ethical parameters.

The scenario presents a complex ethical dilemma involving a CADC in Georgia, a client with a substance use disorder, and potential legal ramifications related to mandated reporting. Georgia law mandates reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect. The core ethical principle at stake is beneficence (acting in the best interest of the client and potential victims) versus non-maleficence (avoiding harm), alongside fidelity (maintaining trust and confidentiality). The CADC must also consider the client’s right to confidentiality under both state and federal regulations (42 CFR Part 2), while balancing the legal obligation to report. Consultation with a supervisor or ethics committee is crucial to navigate this complex situation. The correct course of action involves prioritizing the safety of the child by reporting the suspected abuse, while simultaneously informing the client of the mandated report, maintaining as much therapeutic alliance as possible under the circumstances, and documenting all actions taken with clear justification. Failing to report would be a violation of Georgia law and ethical guidelines, while prematurely terminating treatment could harm the client’s recovery. Ignoring the potential for child abuse is also unethical and illegal.

Ethical decision-making in substance use counseling is complex, often requiring the application of multiple principles simultaneously. In this scenario, the counselor faces a conflict between the client’s right to confidentiality and the potential need to protect the client from self-harm. Georgia law and ethical guidelines prioritize client safety, but also emphasize the importance of maintaining confidentiality whenever possible. The counselor must carefully assess the immediate risk of harm. If the risk is imminent and serious, breaching confidentiality to prevent harm is ethically and legally justifiable. However, if the risk is not immediate, the counselor should explore alternative interventions that respect the client’s autonomy and confidentiality, such as encouraging the client to voluntarily seek help or involving a trusted family member or friend with the client’s consent. Consulting with a supervisor or ethics committee is crucial to ensure the decision is well-reasoned and defensible. The key is to balance the duty to protect the client with the duty to respect their autonomy and confidentiality, documenting all steps taken in the decision-making process. A blanket “always report” or “never report” approach is inappropriate; the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant factors. Therefore, the most ethical course of action is to carefully assess the risk, explore less intrusive interventions, and consult with a supervisor before making a decision about breaching confidentiality.

In Georgia, a CADC encountering a situation where a client, Maria, discloses active participation in a felony drug trafficking operation presents a complex ethical dilemma. While confidentiality is paramount, it is not absolute. Georgia law, along with federal regulations like 42 CFR Part 2 (if the program receives federal funding related to substance use treatment), dictate the limits of confidentiality. The counselor must first carefully assess the immediacy and severity of the threat posed by Maria’s actions. If Maria’s activities pose a clear and imminent danger to herself or others, the counselor may have a duty to warn or protect, potentially overriding confidentiality. This decision must be made in accordance with Georgia’s specific statutes regarding mandated reporting and duty to warn, which may differ from other states. Consulting with a supervisor, legal counsel, or an ethics committee is crucial to navigate this situation ethically and legally. The counselor must also document the consultation and the rationale behind their decision. Simply breaking confidentiality without due consideration and legal justification could expose the counselor to legal and ethical repercussions. The counselor should also explore with Maria the possibility of her self-reporting to law enforcement, offering support and resources for doing so. The counselor’s primary responsibility is to balance client confidentiality with the safety and well-being of the community, adhering to Georgia’s specific legal and ethical guidelines for CADCs.

In Georgia, ethical practice for CADCs necessitates a strong understanding of cultural competence and the ability to adapt counseling approaches to meet the unique needs of diverse client populations. Cultural competence goes beyond simply being aware of cultural differences; it involves actively seeking to understand the client’s worldview, values, beliefs, and experiences, and integrating this knowledge into the counseling process. In the scenario, a CADC, Keisha, is working with a client, Mr. Nguyen, who is a recent immigrant from Vietnam. Mr. Nguyen expresses reluctance to engage in group therapy, a common treatment modality for substance use disorders, citing cultural discomfort with sharing personal information in a group setting with strangers. The most culturally competent response for Keisha is to explore Mr. Nguyen’s concerns further, seeking to understand the specific cultural factors that contribute to his reluctance. She should acknowledge and respect his cultural values while also explaining the potential benefits of group therapy. Keisha could then work collaboratively with Mr. Nguyen to identify alternative treatment options that are more culturally congruent, such as individual counseling, family therapy (if appropriate and with consent), or culturally specific support groups. It is essential to avoid imposing Western-centric treatment approaches and instead tailor the treatment plan to align with Mr. Nguyen’s cultural background and preferences.

According to Georgia statutes and ethical guidelines for CADCs, confidentiality is paramount but not absolute. Exceptions exist, particularly when there is a risk of harm to self or others. This principle aligns with both state law and the ethical codes of professional counseling organizations. In this scenario, Keisha’s expressed intent to harm her abusive partner constitutes a clear and imminent threat. Georgia law mandates reporting in such cases to protect the potential victim. The counselor’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of all parties involved. Consulting with a supervisor or legal counsel is advisable to determine the best course of action and to document the rationale for breaching confidentiality. Continuing to explore Keisha’s feelings and motivations without taking action to protect the potential victim would be a violation of ethical and legal standards. Providing Keisha with a list of domestic violence shelters is a helpful step, but it does not fulfill the legal obligation to report a credible threat of harm.

In Georgia, a CADC encounters a complex ethical dilemma when a client, Maria, discloses during a session that she is diverting a portion of her prescribed Suboxone to her brother, who is also struggling with opioid addiction but is not currently in treatment. Maria states she is doing this out of desperation to prevent him from using heroin and potentially overdosing. This situation presents a conflict between the principles of client confidentiality, the duty to prevent harm, and adherence to legal regulations regarding medication diversion. Georgia law and ethical guidelines for CADCs prioritize client confidentiality, but this is not absolute. Exceptions exist when there is a risk of imminent harm to the client or others. Diversion of Suboxone is illegal and carries significant risks, including overdose and potential legal consequences for both Maria and her brother. The CADC must consider their responsibility to protect Maria’s brother from harm, which may be argued as outweighing the need to maintain Maria’s confidentiality in this specific instance, but must also consider the potential harm to the therapeutic relationship with Maria if confidentiality is breached. The ethical decision-making model involves several steps: identifying the ethical problem, reviewing relevant ethical codes and legal regulations, consulting with supervisors or colleagues, generating possible courses of action, evaluating the potential consequences of each action, and implementing the chosen course of action while documenting the decision-making process. In this scenario, the CADC must carefully weigh the potential benefits and risks of breaking confidentiality versus maintaining it. Reporting the diversion could potentially save Maria’s brother’s life but could also destroy the therapeutic relationship with Maria, leading her to discontinue treatment and potentially relapse. Conversely, not reporting the diversion maintains Maria’s trust but allows a potentially dangerous situation to continue. The most ethically sound course of action involves first attempting to persuade Maria to disclose the diversion to the appropriate authorities or to encourage her brother to seek treatment. If Maria refuses, the CADC must then consider whether the risk of harm to Maria’s brother is sufficiently imminent and serious to justify breaching confidentiality and reporting the diversion to the relevant authorities, such as law enforcement or the Georgia Board of Pharmacy. The decision should be made in consultation with a supervisor and thoroughly documented.

The Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapists mandates specific ethical guidelines for Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselors (LADCs) and CADCs. One crucial aspect is managing dual relationships. A dual relationship occurs when a counselor has a professional relationship with a client and simultaneously has another relationship with the same person. These relationships can impair objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing counseling functions and can risk client exploitation. The scenario presents a situation where Jamal, a CADC in Georgia, is asked to provide counseling services to the son of his long-time friend and fellow church member. This creates a dual relationship because Jamal has a pre-existing social relationship with the client’s father. While Jamal might believe he can remain objective, the existing friendship introduces potential biases and conflicts of interest. Georgia’s ethical standards emphasize avoiding dual relationships that could compromise professional judgment or exploit clients. Although Jamal intends to involve the father in family sessions, the initial dual relationship established through the father’s existing friendship with Jamal poses an inherent risk. Even with informed consent, the power dynamic and potential for compromised objectivity are significant concerns. Jamal should recognize the inherent risks and prioritize the client’s well-being by referring the son to another qualified counselor who does not have a pre-existing relationship with the family. This ensures that the client receives unbiased and ethical care, aligning with the ethical standards set forth by the Georgia Composite Board. Therefore, the most ethical course of action is for Jamal to refer the client to another counselor.

According to Georgia law and ethical guidelines for CADCs, confidentiality is paramount but not absolute. Exceptions exist, particularly when there’s a risk of harm to self or others. In situations where a client expresses intent to harm another person, the counselor has a duty to protect that potential victim. This duty overrides confidentiality. The CADC must assess the credibility and immediacy of the threat. If the threat is deemed credible and imminent, the counselor is obligated to take steps to warn the intended victim and/or notify law enforcement. This is based on the Tarasoff ruling and its extensions in Georgia law, balancing client confidentiality with public safety. Consultation with a supervisor or legal counsel is also advisable to ensure appropriate action is taken. Simply documenting the threat without taking further action would be insufficient and could lead to legal and ethical repercussions. Ignoring the threat altogether is a direct violation of ethical and legal obligations. Informing only the client about the severity is not enough to protect the potential victim.

42 CFR Part 2 is a federal regulation that protects the confidentiality of patient records related to substance use treatment. It applies to programs that receive federal funding and provide alcohol or drug abuse diagnosis, treatment, or referral services. 42 CFR Part 2 requires that patient records be kept confidential and that they cannot be disclosed without the patient’s written consent, with limited exceptions. These exceptions include disclosures for medical emergencies, research, audits, and court orders. Violations of 42 CFR Part 2 can result in civil and criminal penalties. Georgia CADCs must be knowledgeable about 42 CFR Part 2 and comply with its requirements to protect the privacy of their clients. The regulations also address the sharing of information within a program and with outside entities, emphasizing the need for strict protocols and safeguards.

The question requires understanding the ethical decision-making process, particularly in situations where ethical principles conflict. Ethical decision-making models typically involve several steps: identifying the ethical dilemma, considering relevant ethical principles and codes, consulting with supervisors or colleagues, generating possible courses of action, evaluating the potential consequences of each action, selecting the best course of action, and implementing and evaluating the decision. In this scenario, the CADC must weigh the client’s right to confidentiality against the potential harm to others. The correct approach involves a systematic evaluation of the ethical principles involved, consultation with relevant parties, and a careful consideration of the potential outcomes of each course of action.