Tarasoff Decision: A Decade Later Dilemma Still Faces Psychotherapists
Abstract
The landmark cases on the “duty to warn” concept are reviewed. Two trends are noted in the court rulings. The first trend narrowly interprets the duty to warn as applying only to situations involving a serious threat to a specific individual. The second trend has broadened the doctrine to include warnings about patients who do not make threats and whose potential victims are unspecified. The authors argue that the original Tarasoff Doctrine is sound both from the perspective of public policy and psychotherapeutic practice, but that its broader interpretation is problematic for psychotherapists.
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.- Personal login
- Institutional Login
- Sign in via OpenAthens
- Register for access
-
Please login/register if you wish to pair your device and check access availability.
Not a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5 library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).
