Explanation:
The law is outlined in paragraph one, and it is suggested that therapists strive to first discuss difficulties with their clients before breaking confidentiality. We are also informed that "it is understood that this cannot always be the case" in cases where the factors are very pressing. As a result, they don't always break the law.
Explanation:
This cannot be the case since, as stated in the first paragraph, universities were the only institutions with the necessary engineering expertise to conduct the caliber of research necessary to achieve such goals [innovation in next-generation technology breakthroughs at the nexus of disciplines].
Explanation:
Someone would have to violate confidentially for a number of reasons, including the law and their work contract. And it can happen because of the terms of their work contract or the legislation.
Explanation:
Psychotherapists acknowledge that laws are normally in place to protect patient confidentiality, but this doesn't tell us whether they agree with the laws or not. As a result, this is a "Cannot tell" response.
Explanation:
Although it is known that ERCs were founded in the 1980s, the reasons provided for their founding do not mention a decline in interest in science and engineering. When the third generation of ERCs was introduced, this was the situation.
Explanation:
According to the final clause, "individual employers and independent therapists have their own bounds but must legally agree this with their client at the commencement of the therapeutic partnership." This implies that they do have some latitude in determining what they consider to be serious enough.
Explanation:
True, as stated in the text, "Legitimate breaches of confidentiality apply to cases when the client has disclosed information relating to acts of terrorism; information of this sort must be reported."