Assuming that the assertion is correct (I don't live in CA, so I'm unfamiliar with their mental health counseling ethics requirements), I would say that the rationale for the requirement is pretty straightforward - someone with a history of blackout drinking poses a significantly increased risk of driving under the influence and may pose a public danger.I don't think this is all that different from the requirement that they report a person to the authorities if they pose an imminent danger of great harm to themselves or others.Obviously, this does have an impact on patient disclosure, if the patient is aware of the requirement.u00a0 But, the interest in public safety (and the safety of the patient) arguably outweighs this concern.