Tarasoff: protective privilege versus public peril
Abstract
The author reviews the decision made by the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California, et al., which stipulated that therapists must warn authorities specified by law as well as potential victims of possible dangerous actions of their patients. He states the basic points of the Northern California Psychiatric Society's amicus curiae brief on behalf of the university regents and discusses the issues raised by the Tarasoff decision vis-- 53a-vis the mental health profession and its dealings with potentially violent individuals.
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.).
