Search results
- In Tarasoff I, the court ruled that doctors and psychotherapists have a legal obligation to warn a patient’s intended victim if that person is in foreseeable danger from the patient. Warning the police or other authorities is not good enough. This is a concept known as the “duty to warn.”
www.thecarlatreport.com/articles/3609-tarasoff-making-sense-of-the-duty-to-warn-or-protect
People also ask
What is a Tarasoff duty?
What happened in the Tarasoff case?
Why did the Court reject the Tarasoff limitation?
Where did Tarasoff apply?
Apr 1, 2018 · Four decades have passed since the Tarasoff ruling, yet a clear and ubiquitous method for its application has not been established. Discrepancies and vagueness between states, as well as between providers, regarding how and when to apply the duty to protect still exist.
- Ahmad Adi, Mohammad Mathbout
- 2018
Jan 7, 2022 · In Tarasoff I, the court ruled that doctors and psychotherapists have a legal obligation to warn a patient’s intended victim if that person is in foreseeable danger from the patient. Warning the police or other authorities is not good enough. This is a concept known as the “duty to warn.”
Oct 31, 2021 · In this famous and controversial case heard before the California Supreme Court in 1976, the majority opinion held that the duty of confidentiality in psychotherapy is outweighed by the duty to protect an intended victim from a serious danger of violence.
Sep 27, 2019 · The court rejected the Tarasoff limitation to an identified victim, imposing not only a duty on therapists to predict violence, but also a duty to protect unidentified victims in the general public. Similar cases in the wake of Tarasoff eventually led to strong objection to such legal expectations.
Forty years after the Tarasoff ruling, the threshold of the duty to protect remains subjective, with no clear set of clinical guidelines regarding when a breach of confidentiality is war-ranted, which places mental health pro-viders in a dubious position.
The Tarasoff I and Tarasoff II cases were decided by the California Supreme Court in 1974 and 1976, respectively. These cases involved the murder of a young woman by her ex-boyfriend, who had been a patient at a University counseling center. The parents of the young woman sued, alleging negligence.
Jan 11, 2023 · After the Tarasoff decision, in many United States jurisdictions, the courts have recognized the legal duty of psychotherapists to protectpotential victims, notwithstanding that doing so may involve a breach in the therapist-client confidentiality and may pose a significant threat to continued effective treatment.
