The situation with a psychotherapist Kiara and her client is ambiguous: while she eventually provided the informed consent form, she did it only after three months of therapy. Initially, she only briefly mentioned confidentiality and the client’s rights, stating that everything said in her office will remain there. When Kiara visited the conference where the malpractice in confidentiality was discussed, she realized that she had forgotten about the consent form and presented it to the client, who was confused by that (Corey, 2015). By that time, the trust between the client and Kiara had already been established, but it began to fade after that situation. Eventually, the customer left the therapy and never returned.
To understand the situation with Kiara, one should analyze the ethical code and client’s rights and then understand which of them were followed and not followed. While she explicitly stated the confidentiality right and the therapy’s process description, she forgot to mention the limitations of confidentiality and other sides of the practice, such as financial considerations (Corey, 2015). In addition, she only said those descriptions verbally, without making a written agreement or consent form. As her colleague, I would advise Kiara to ensure that a client will fill out the informed consent form next time. If she did not make it, I think it will not be good to mention it: she only must ensure that the client’s personal information will not be shared. In my opinion, it was an excellent alternative to her action: it would save the trust between her and the client. It would be ethical, as Kiara would not actually compromise the customer and, thus, should ensure that they will not stop trusting her.