Gutierrez-Lobos K, Wagner E, Schmidl-Mohl B, Scmhid-Siegel B
University of Vienna, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Social Psychiatry, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2000 Feb;44(1):33-45. doi: 10.1177/0306624X00441004.
The impact of the Austrian Psychotherapy Act, which, in contrast to legal provisions in the United States, does not provide for any exceptions to breach confidentiality, is compared with the effects of U.S. law on dealing with confidentiality. The authors investigated the impact of this law in light of three common situations in psychotherapy that may jeopardize strict confidentiality: treating potentially dangerous patients, giving testimony, and serving as a psychotherapist in prison. Under the strict provisions of the Austrian Psychotherapy Act, a breach may be excusable in the case of a highly probable danger, but Austrian psychotherapists cannot be obliged to serve as witnesses or as experts in civil or criminal cases, as American psychotherapists can. Psychotherapy in prison, where release is contingent on the success of the therapy and the divulging of information could be in the interests of the patient as well as the court and the public, requires a modified dealing with confidentiality.
奥地利《心理治疗法》与美国的法律规定不同，该法未对违反保密规定的情况作出任何例外规定，本文将其影响与美国法律在处理保密问题上的效果进行了比较。作者根据心理治疗中三种可能危及严格保密的常见情况，研究了该法律的影响：治疗潜在危险患者、提供证词以及在监狱中担任心理治疗师。根据奥地利《心理治疗法》的严格规定，在极有可能发生危险的情况下，违反保密规定或许情有可原，但奥地利的心理治疗师不能像美国的心理治疗师那样，被强制要求在民事或刑事案件中担任证人或专家。在监狱中的心理治疗，其释放取决于治疗的成功与否，而透露信息可能符合患者、法院和公众的利益，这就需要对保密问题进行变通处理。
