Add To Cart

Privacy and Confidentiality in the Therapeutic Relationship

Section 4
FS 456.072 (o) Scope permitted by law and performing
professional responsibilities
(Excerpt from Regulation is reprinted below)

Question 4 | Test | Table of Contents

FS 456.072 Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement
Summary of Changes


The changes in the regulations are as follows.
Summary of changes...
As indicated below, the regulations from 2015 to 2018 had no changes.

2015
FS 456.072 (o)
(o) Practicing or offering to practice beyond the scope permitted by law or accepting and performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, the licensee is not competent to perform.

2016
FS 456.072 (o)
(o) Practicing or offering to practice beyond the scope permitted by law or accepting and performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, the licensee is not competent to perform.

2017
FS 456.072 (o)
(o) Practicing or offering to practice beyond the scope permitted by law or accepting and performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, the licensee is not competent to perform.

2018
FS 456.072 (o)
(o) Practicing or offering to practice beyond the scope permitted by law or accepting and performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, the licensee is not competent to perform.

- Florida Legislature. (2015-2018). Chapter 456 Health Professions and Occupations: General Provisions. 456.072 Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0400-0499/0456/Sections/0456.072.html


Scope permitted by law and performing
professional responsibilities
Application Example...
Expert Witness, Testifying in Court

Our democratic principles rest on the belief that truth is discovered through the fair and open combat of ideas in a court of law. When mental health professionals participate in this adversary process as expert witnesses, it is essential for them to understand that attorneys will attempt to impeach their credibility.
Mental health professionals who appreciate the spirit and mechanics of courtroom communication will be best prepared to protect the integrity of their testimony. The courtroom communications model provides experts with a conceptual framework utilizing three components: the speaker is the expert, the message  is testimony, and the audience is the judge or jury. Within the structure of this model, communication principles from social psychology can be used to enhance the clarity of testimony and to prevent  attorneys from distorting the expert's opinions. First and foremost, expert witness testimony must be formulated upon accepted scholarly and ethical standards.

To establish credibility, experts must appear knowledgeable and trustworthy to the judge and jury. The expert must come to court prepared for both direct examination and cross­examination; know when to emphasize logic or emotion, tailor speech in order to reach the maximum number of jurors, and remain nondefensive by projecting the same  demeanor regardless of which side is conducting the examination. The role of the expert witness is  forever changing because the judicial system­­like the mental health field­­continues to evolve. Although the adversary process has undergone dramatic changes over the past eight hundred years, historical vestiges continue to echo throughout our courtrooms. Expert witnesses can be champions of victims and the accused. Legal disputes are increasingly being decided by the battle of the experts who must undergo the ordeal of cross­examination. When you consider the brutality of ancient ordeals, responding to attorneys armed with questions may not seem so daunting.
- Center for Forensic Psychiatry. (1996). New Dir Ment Health Serv, 69(5-14).
Reviewed 2023

Peer-Reviewed Journal Article References:
Barnett, J. E., & Kolmes, K. (2016). The practice of tele-mental health: Ethical, legal, and clinical issues for practitioners. Practice Innovations, 1(1), 53–66.

Barnett, J. E. (2019). The ethical practice of psychotherapy: Clearly within our reach. Psychotherapy, 56(4), 431–440.

Chui, H., Palma, B., Jackson, J. L., & Hill, C. E. (2020). Therapist–client agreement on helpful and wished-for experiences in psychotherapy: Associations with outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 67(3), 349–360. 

Franeta, D. (2019). Taking ethics seriously: Toward comprehensive education in ethics and human rights for psychologists. European Psychologist, 24(2), 125–135.

Pope, K. S. (2015). Record-keeping controversies: Ethical, legal, and clinical challenges. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 56(3), 348–356.

Younggren, J. N., Fisher, M. A., Foote, W. E., & Hjelt, S. E. (2011). A legal and ethical review of patient responsibilities and psychotherapist duties. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(2), 160–168.

QUESTION 4
 What would be grounds for discipline, penalties, enforcement? To select and enter your answer go to Test.

Test
Section 5
Table of Contents
Top