Under what conditions can a psychologist break confidentiality in cases of potential harm due to HIV?

The correct choice pertains to the ethical considerations surrounding confidentiality and the potential for harm to third parties. Psychologists are generally required to maintain confidentiality; however, this obligation can be breached if there's a credible threat of harm to an identifiable third party. In cases involving HIV, if a psychologist determines that a client’s actions pose a significant risk to the health of a specific individual, the psychologist may have a duty to disclose information to protect that third party from harm. This principle aligns with the ethics codes of many professional organizations, which allow for breaching confidentiality under circumstances where there is a foreseeable risk of serious harm to others.

The rationale for the other options centers around the balance between client confidentiality and the responsibility to safeguard public health. While verbal consent from a client can facilitate disclosure in some circumstances, it does not constitute a sufficient reason for breach when the risk of harm is not directed at a known, identifiable third party. A diagnosis of AIDS, while serious, does not automatically justify breaching confidentiality since the risk to others would still need to be evaluated. Lastly, a one-time event of unprotected sex may not indicate a continuing risk to others unless there are specific details suggesting that the individual is likely to continue putting others at risk. Thus, the conditions for