Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California - Wikipedia
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California , 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 ( Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a …
Tarasoff and the Duty to Protect - Taylor & Francis Online
2008年9月24日 · The Tarasoff I and Tarasoff II cases were decided by the California Supreme Court in 1974 and 1976, respectively. These cases involved the murder of a young woman by her ex-boyfriend, who had been a patient at a University counseling center.
Duty to Warn - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
2023年8月28日 · This concept of ‘duty to warn’ stems from California Supreme Court case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California that took place in the 1970s and comprised of two rulings known as the Tarasoff I (1974) and Tarasoff II (1976).[1][2][3][4]
Psychiatric Malpractice Grand Rounds: The Tarasoff Dilemma
2019年9月27日 · In its 1976 ruling, the Court replaced duty to warn with a duty to protect. 2 The famous quote from Tarasoff II, which was adapted by many states across the country, made the change clear: “When a therapist determines, or should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use ...
Tarasoff: Making Sense of the Duty to Warn or Protect
2022年1月7日 · The family sued the university, leading eventually to two important California Supreme Court decisions, referred to as Tarasoff I and Tarasoff II. In Tarasoff I, the court ruled that doctors and psychotherapists have a legal obligation to warn a patient’s intended victim if that person is in foreseeable danger from the patient. Warning the ...
The Tarasoff duty to protect can be compartmentalized into two phases: the first is the assessment phase, and the second phase involves what action should be taken, based upon the assessment. If the clinician’s
TARASOFF the CASE (determined by CA Supreme Court, 1976) 1. The duty to protect is triggered when the clinician “determines that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to another.” An actual threat of violence is unnecessary. 2. Potential victim = “intended victims” 3. Discharging the duty to protect: It may require the
The Duty to Protect: Four Decades After Tarasoff
2018年4月1日 · Forty years after the Tarasoff ruling, the threshold of the duty to protect remains subjective, with no clear set of clinical guidelines regarding when a breach of confidentiality is warranted, which places mental health providers in a dubious position.
The Tarasoff Rule: The Implications of Interstate Variation and …
2019年11月7日 · In this article, we review the implications of this variability and dynamism, focusing on three sets of questions: first, what legal and ethics-related challenges do therapists in each of the three broad categories of states (states that mandate therapists to warn or protect, states that permit therapists to breach confidentiality for warnings b...
Tarasoff and the duty to protect. - APA PsycNet
This article discusses the events that led to the legal case, reviews the legal doctrines that provided a foundation for the court's ruling, and examines in detail the judges' analysis. The article then explores how New York State has addressed the …