Intervening to protect others may require sacrificing client autonomy. Which statement is correct?

• A. Client autonomy should never be compromised.
• B. It is sometimes justified to intervene to prevent harm, even if autonomy is limited.
• C. Autonomy always supersedes safety concerns.
• D. Interventions to protect others are unethical.

Answer: (B)

Balancing client autonomy with protecting others is the idea being tested. Autonomy is a fundamental value in counseling, but it isn’t absolute. When there is a serious risk that a client will harm someone else, ethical practice supports taking steps to prevent that harm, even if it means restricting or breaching some level of confidentiality or autonomy. This reflects the duty to protect and the idea that safety of others can justify intervention, such as warning potential victims, alerting authorities, or arranging involuntary treatment if the danger is imminent. So the statement that intervention to prevent harm can be justified even when autonomy is limited is correct.

The other options assume autonomy is always paramount or fully overrides safety concerns, or declare that protecting others is unethical. These positions don’t fit ethical practice, which permits measured interventions to prevent harm while still honoring the client’s rights whenever possible.