Tarasoff and the clinician: problems in fulfilling the duty to protect
Abstract
The obligation to protect potential victims of one's patients, as first described in the California Tarasoff case, is being endorsed by an increasing number of jurisdictions. Although problematic in many respects, it has become a factor that must be dealt with in routine clinical interactions. The author presents a three-part model of the Tarasoff obligation--identifying the requirements of assessment, selection of a course of action, and implementation--and illustrates with case examples the mistakes that clinicians commonly make at each of these stages. Guidelines are suggested for a reasonable approach to dealing with the Tarasoff doctrine.
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.).
