Which statement best reflects ethical dilemmas in IPV practice regarding confidentiality, consent, and safety?

• A. Balancing autonomy with safety
• B. Strictly following consent in all cases
• C. Not sharing information with any service
• D. Prioritizing legal obligations over survivor preferences

Answer: (A)

In IPV practice, you’re weighing respect for a survivor’s autonomy and privacy against the real need to keep them safe. The strongest approach treats confidentiality as essential but not absolute: you share information or involve others only in ways that support safety and the survivor’s own goals, and you do so through an ongoing consent process. This means clearly explaining when and why information might be shared, offering options for disclosure, and partnering with the survivor on a safety plan. There are times when imminent danger or mandated reporting obligate action, but even then the aim is to minimize harm while keeping the survivor involved in decisions as much as possible. So, balancing autonomy with safety best captures the ethical nuance: protect the survivor’s rights and agency while taking prudent steps to reduce risk.

Choosing to strictly follow consent in all cases misses safety needs that may require disclosure to protect someone from harm. Not sharing information with any service ignores the practical supports that can reduce risk and empower the survivor. Prioritizing legal obligations over survivor preferences discounts autonomy and can erode trust, which undermines long-term safety and engagement.