Contents
What was the major result of the Tarasoff case?
In Tarasoff, the court declared that protective privilege ends where social peril begins. In this case, overriding the protective privilege of the individual could lead to greater societal peril.
What is the significance of the Tarasoff Regents of the University of California decision for social workers?
For more than four decades, social workers have been taught about the ethical implications of the famed case Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, which established the national benchmark for mental health professionals’ disclosure of confidential information to protect third parties from harm.
What did the Tarasoff decision establish?
In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient.
Why is the duty to warn an ethical issue?
Duty to Warn When counsellors become aware of their client’s Intent or potential to place others in clear or imminent danger, they use reasonable care to give threatened persons such warnings as are essential to avert foreseeable dangers.
What is the Tarasoff warning?
In 1985, the California legislature codified the Tarasoff rule: California law now provides that a psychotherapist has a duty to protect or warn a third party only if the therapist actually believed or predicted that the patient posed a serious risk of inflicting serious bodily injury upon a reasonably identifiable …
What is the difference between a duty to warn and a duty to protect?
The duty to warn refers to a counselor’s obligation to warn identifiable victims. The duty to protect is a counselor’s duty to reveal confidential client information in the event that the counselor has reason to believe that a third party may be harmed.
Who murdered Tarasoff?
Poddar
On Oct. 27, 1969, Poddar stabbed and killed Tarasoff at her home. After the killing, Poddar called the police, confessed and asked to be handcuffed. Tarasoff’s parents sued Moore and other employees of the University, in a legal action that would be memorialized as Tarasoff v.
What was the court’s decision in the Tarasoff case?
It took the court an additional eighteen months to re-issue the decision in different language; the 1976 decision is similar though not identical to the one issued in 1974. In a hard-fought 5-2 decision the court held that when a therapist predicts that his patient is a danger to another person, he has a duty to warn that person of that danger.
Why was Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California decided?
In ruling on the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, the court determined that the need for therapists to protect the public was more important that protecting client-therapist confidentiality.
Who was immune from the Poddar V Tarasoff case?
The Supreme Court concluded that all defendants, including the campus police, were immune from suit for failure to act properly to convince Poddar on the basis of a California statute. However, they did rule in a December 1974 decision that the psychologist had a “duty to warn” a potential victim.
Who was involved in the case of Tanya Tarasoff?
Ms. Tarasoff’s parents brought suit against the psychologist, his superior, the campus police, and their employer, the University of California, for failure to warn them, Tanya, or anyone who could have reasonably been expected to notify Tanya of her danger and for negligently failing to confine Poddar.