NCJ Number
146646
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1994) Pages: 86-93
Date Published
1994
Length
8 pages
Annotation
In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled in Tarasoff versus Regents of the University of California that a duty to protect arises when a psychotherapist's patient poses a serious danger of physical harm to an identifiable third party.
Abstract
Discharging this duty by issuing a warning breaches the confidentiality of the psychotherapist-patient relationship. The potential benefit to society, however, offsets possible harm caused by the breach of confidentiality. Warnings have served little purpose other than possibly preventing harm. The cumulative effect of three recent California Supreme Court cases, however, has been to permit the use of confidentiality breaches in criminal proceedings to fulfill prosecutorial goals. Nonetheless, the cost of achieving social justice may be at the expense of other important ethical values for both the psychotherapy profession and society in general. 21 references