Investigate the events that occurred in the state of California on October 27, 1969 between Tatiana Tarasoff and Prosenjit Poddar. Through an explanatory article explain the details of this case, the details of the event, the persons and entities involved, as well as the ethical and legal issues that arose from this event, which changed the laws of confidentiality of the client.
Summarize in your article that it is the duty to warn (Duty to warn) and duty to protect (Duty to protect) and give example of both. Finally, please investigate:
- What is the criterion for the duty to warn (Duty to Warn)?
- Is the duty to warn law in our state?
Full Answer Section
The Ethical and Legal Dilemmas:
This event sparked a legal and ethical debate regarding therapist-client confidentiality. Traditionally, therapists were bound by a strict code of confidentiality, prohibiting them from disclosing any information revealed by their clients without their consent. However, the Tarasoff case challenged this notion by raising the question: Does a therapist have a duty to warn potential victims when a client threatens harm to another individual?
The Tarasoff Decision:
In 1974, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tarasoff family. The court established the duty to warn, stating that therapists have a legal obligation to warn the intended victim and potentially law enforcement if a patient poses a serious threat of violence to a specific and identifiable individual. This landmark decision marked a significant shift in the balance between confidentiality and duty to protect.
Duty to Warn vs. Duty to Protect:
- Duty to Warn: This refers to the legal obligation of a therapist to warn the potential victim of a client's threat of violence.
- Duty to Protect: This broader concept encompasses not only warning the potential victim but also taking additional steps to protect them, such as hospitalization or informing law enforcement. The extent of the duty to protect can vary depending on the specific situation and state laws.
Criteria for Duty to Warn:
The Tarasoff case established several specific criteria for the duty to warn:
- Serious Threat: The client must have made a serious threat of violence towards a specific and identifiable individual.
- Foreseeability: The therapist must have reason to believe the threat is credible and likely to be carried out.
- Ability to Warn: The therapist must have the ability to warn the potential victim or take other reasonable steps to protect them.
Is the Duty to Warn Law in Your State?
The legal framework surrounding the duty to warn varies significantly between states. While California established this duty through the Tarasoff decision, other states may have different or even no specific legislation regarding therapists' obligations in such situations.
It is crucial to consult with a legal professional to understand the specific laws and regulations applicable to your state and the duty to warn in similar situations.
Sample Answer
On October 27, 1969, a tragic incident occurred in California that would forever change the landscape of therapist-client confidentiality. The case involved Tatiana Tarasoff, a young woman who confided in her therapist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, about her feelings of anger and homicidal ideation towards a man named Prosenjit Poddar. Unfortunately, Dr. Moore did not take any action to warn Mr. Poddar or law enforcement, and sadly, Mr. Poddar was later murdered by Tarasoff.