It is said that the notion of a "right" to privacy is a peculiarly American convention. In our society, information is important. It information gets into the wrong hands it can be damaging. We all value our privacy.
As is the case with so many of the interests of people with mental retardation, their rights to privacy and confidentiality may not be carefully protected. In part this is because they are often looked upon as perpetual children, surely an inappropriate designation for people who are chronologically adult. It is also true that we tend to think of people with mental retardation as "incompetent," a designation that can in fact be made only by a judge; all adults are competent until a judge rules otherwise. (See Chapter 23)
Beyond this legal convention, however, lies a confusion about what rights are owed to all citizens, competent or incompetent. This is not only a question of laws but also a question of values and ethics; we must each decide whether we think that privacy and confidentiality are due to every citizen, even a citizen who may in some respects not be competent. Finally, the privacy and confidentiality rights of a person with mental retardation might be ignored because that person needs to be cared for by others, and those who give care may feel they have a right (as a return for caretaking) to talk about the person in their care in a way that violates her privacy.
In the mental health field, the nature of client information is exceptionally sensitive. In fact, the therapeutic endeavor cannot take place unless people are encouraged to reveal the most sensitive and important information about themselves. If a client does not feel safe to talk about what is bothering her (and this is often confidential information), then it is most difficult to have effective therapy.
Confidentiality is an important issue for mental health professionals. Discussions of legal issues in mental health care always consider