Question

Consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following:

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians.

Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff.

Discuss if a clinician should be held civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician assessed.

Answer 1

Answer.

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, (California 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 patient. The decision is a landmark development within the field of mental health as it called for a duty to protect the intended victim against harm by one’s patient. The judgement is crucial in that it addressed a major ethical dilemma faced by mental health practitioners regarding the protection of their client’s right to confidentiality vs. their larger responsibility towards collective good against any malpractices or dangerous behaviours on part of their patients or clients. It is now mandated that a professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual if they suspect that their clients pose a threat to others in their environment.