Question

1. What were the two competing issues the California Supreme Court had to figure out how to balance in the Tarasoff cases (one issue was “pitted against” the other)? How did they balance those two competing issues (i.e., which was given more weight in the Tarasoff decisions)?

2. How did the 1976 Tarasoff decision differ from the 1974 Tarasoff decision?

Answer 1

1. The two competing issues the California Supreme Court had to figure out how to balance in the Tarasoff cases was patient confidentiality, a critical ethical code of psychotherapists versus an obligation to protect public interests. The Tarasoff decision balanced these competing issues by emphasizing the ethical responsibility of beneficence and non-maleficence. Particularly,  the state of California later passed a law stating that all therapists have a duty to protect intended victims by either warning victims directly, notifying law enforcement directly, or taking whatever other steps to prevent harm might be needed.

2. The major difference between the 1974 Tarasoff decision and the 1976 Tarasoff decision was that in the 1974 Tarasoff decision, the court set forth a “duty to warn” on the part of psychotherapists. Upon rehearing in 1976, the decision was upheld but modified and the court stated that the therapist has a “duty to protect” that other person.