The Sleepy Pilot and the Duty to Warn
You are a licensed clinical psychologist in solo private practice. A new client, Mr. R, is a 41-year-old commercial airline captain referred by his primary care physician for insomnia and 'stress.' Over four sessions you diagnose adjustment disorder with anxiety. In session five, Mr. R discloses that for the past three weeks he has been drinking 3-4 beers most evenings to fall asleep, and that twice this month he flew a scheduled passenger route within 10 hours of his last drink. He says he feels 'fine by the time I'm in the cockpit' and begs you not to tell anyone, stating he will lose his career and his family. He has no history of suicide attempts, denies current suicidal ideation, and refuses your suggestion that he voluntarily report to his employer's aeromedical office. Your state has a permissive duty-to-protect statute that applies to threats of serious harm to identifiable persons.
1. Identify the competing ethical and legal obligations in this situation and describe how you would reason through them rather than simply choosing disclosure or confidentiality.
Read the worked answer
The core tension is between confidentiality (APA Ethics Standard 4.01, 4.05) and the duty to protect public safety. Key obligations: (1) Confidentiality/privacy - the default, and Mr. R disclosed under an expectation of privacy. (2) Duty to protect - the state statute is permissive, not mandatory, and is framed around identifiable victims. Here the persons at risk are the flying public - foreseeable but not individually identifiable. That matters: the statute may not squarely compel action, but it does not forbid it, and the general ethical principle of nonmaleficence (avoiding harm to third parties) still applies. (3) Competence and scope - you are not an aeromedical examiner; your role is clinical, not regulatory. (4) Informed consent - the limits of confidentiality should have been discussed at intake; review what you actually told him.
Reasoning steps: First, assess imminence and probability of harm. Mr. R is currently flying and drinking before duty - this is an ongoing, recurrent risk, not a hypothetical. Second, consider least restrictive alternatives in order of intrusiveness: (a) continued motivational work to get voluntary self-report or voluntary grounding; (b) a written safety agreement that he not fly after any alcohol use; (c) consulting a colleague or your ethics committee; (d) if risk persists, disclosure to the employer/aeromedical authority or a report to the appropriate regulatory body. Third, document the risk assessment, the options considered, and the rationale at each step. Fourth, recognize that 'permissive' statutes give you discretion but that professional judgment - not fear of liability alone - should drive the decision. You would not simply invoke 'duty to warn' as a reflex; you would build a defensible, documented, stepped process.
2. Mr. R refuses voluntary reporting. Describe your next clinical and administrative steps, including what you would and would not do, and how you would document them.
Read the worked answer
Clinical steps: Re-engage Mr. R with a frank, non-judgmental risk conversation. Use motivational interviewing to explore the gap between his stated values (safety, family, career) and his behavior. Offer concrete supports: referral to a substance use specialist, an FAA/HIMS-type monitoring program if applicable in his jurisdiction, and a plan for grounding himself voluntarily while you work together. Reinforce that voluntary disclosure typically yields a better outcome than a report discovered later. Assess for alcohol use disorder formally (e.g., AUDIT) and revisit the insomnia treatment - alcohol is a poor sleep aid, and treating the underlying insomnia (CBT-I) may reduce drinking.
Administrative steps: (1) Consult - a trusted colleague, your malpractice carrier's risk line, and/or your state ethics committee, documenting the consultation. (2) Review the exact statutory language and your jurisdictional reporting rules (some jurisdictions impose mandatory reporting for impaired pilots independent of the duty-to-protect statute). (3) If, after this, you judge the risk of harm to the flying public to be serious and continuing, make the narrowest disclosure necessary - to the employer's designated aeromedical/medical authority rather than broadcasting to supervisors - and inform Mr. R beforehand of what you will disclose and to whom where safe to do so.
What you would not do: You would not promise absolute secrecy, and you would not delay indefinitely out of fear of losing the client. You also would not unilaterally 'diagnose' him as unfit to fly - that is the aeromedical authority's determination; you report observations and risk.
Documentation: Record the disclosure, your risk assessment (frequency, recency, pattern), the options considered and rejected, consultations obtained, the client's responses, the disclosure made (to whom, what, when), and your continuing plan. Contemporaneous, reasoned documentation is your best protection and the best evidence of ethical practice.