On one hand, there is accountability, while there is confidentiality on the other. While the counsellor’s decision making on a case is limited by the premise of indirectly allowing positive decision making from a list of options availed to the client, it is not always easy. Counsellors are expected to induce positive thinking on the part of the client but when faced with stubborn hard-line stances by the clients, it becomes a presenting challenge in itself. The client’s HIV status, the fiancé’s unawareness, the client’s unwillingness to disclose to the fiancé and the short duration of time to the alleged wedding appear to be major diagnostic problems of the case.
This case falls in the category of relationships which definitely require the involvement of both partners at one point of the therapy. Since the client does not want the fiancé to be involved in the details of the case poses the confidentiality issue of ethics. Whereas the details of the case are required to be positively progressing, the client wants to be fixated and progressing at the same time. Intrusive counsellor input is required in the manner of streamlined options with deep influential implications to the client. In other words, the counsellor needs to be assertive in case the stubbornness does not tone down. The only hard part in achieving this is the short duration time to the wedding, an action which changes the details of the case to a fundamentally difficult level (Corey, 2008). The counsellor client relationship is built on trust, which would be compromised if the counsellor informed his fiancé of the risks involved in marrying the client.
It is equally important that the counsellor understands the details of the client’s level of intimacy with his fiancé, because if they have been having a sexual relationship without protection, it could change the direction of the case (Sommers and Sommers, 2004). The counsellor must obtain all formation on the client to such a level