Psychotherapy and disclosure: recent court decisions.
OBJECTIVE
To encourage mental health professionals concerned about the practice of psychotherapy to add their voices to the legal debate on disclosure.


METHODS
Analysis of recent court decisions, in particular 2 Supreme Court of Canada judgements, R. v. O'Connor and R. v. Carosella, and 1 United States Supreme Court judgement, Jaffee v. Redmond.


RESULTS
The lack of a common definition of psychotherapy may, in part, have made it awkward for mental health professionals to mount a concerted defence of psychotherapy dossiers.


CONCLUSIONS
Unless mental health professionals develop a more robust justification and delimitation for privilege, in Canadian courts possible relevance of clinical material is likely to override concern for the patient's privacy interest. Future research might evaluate the impact of loss of privilege upon different types of psychotherapy.
Furlong
A
A
Lefebvre
M S
MS
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002170:Canada; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004995:Ethics, Professional; D006801:Humans; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D018907:Privacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations; D011613:Psychotherapy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012941:Social Responsibility; D014342:Truth Disclosure; D014481:United States