Should therapists be bound by a 'duty to warn'?

The California Supreme Court emphasized the principle in a 1974 case, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, saying that mental-health professionals have a duty not only to protect their patients, but also to anyone threatened by a patient. If a person has violent fantasies or thoughts...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inTCA News Service
Main Author Ann Rosen Spector
Format Newsletter
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago Tribune Content Agency LLC 08.04.2015
Subjects
Aircraft accidents & safety
Medical personnel
Patients
Therapists
Violence
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The California Supreme Court emphasized the principle in a 1974 case, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, saying that mental-health professionals have a duty not only to protect their patients, but also to anyone threatened by a patient. If a person has violent fantasies or thoughts, we should encourage that person to be treated by a competent professional. Since those professionals are required to inform patients of the limits of confidentiality when treatment begins, including any legal mandates about a duty to warn, the most likely outcome would be to discourage the very people who most need treatment.