Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Therapist’s Duty to Potential Victims: A Nonthreatening View of Tarasoff

A Therapist’s Duty to Potential Victims: A Nonthreatening View of Tarasoff Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1977 Case~Comment A Therapist's Duty to Potential Victims A Nonthreatening View of Tarasoff What is the scope of a therapist's duty to protect persons from threats made against them by patients during therapy? If there is a duty owed to the public as well as to the patient, how are any conflicts between the two to be resolved? In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1 the California Supreme Court recently concluded that a therapist does have a duty to exercise care in protect- ing a foreseeable victim from harm threatened by his patient. Debate surrounding the decision has been vigorous. Commentators have criticized the opinion for intruding into the patient-therapist relationship, 2 conflicting with the therapist's primary duty to serve his patient, 8 and constraining the practice of psychotherapy. 4 1Taras0ff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 529 P.2d 342, 118 Cal. Rptr. 129 (1974), vacated, 17 Cal.3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976). [T]he primary inadequacy of the Court's holding is not that it does not give serious thought to protecting the public, but rather that the duty it would impose is self-defeating, increasing, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

A Therapist’s Duty to Potential Victims: A Nonthreatening View of Tarasoff

Law and Human Behavior , Volume 1 (3): 9 – Sep 1, 1977

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/a-therapist-s-duty-to-potential-victims-a-nonthreatening-view-of-fSvTL6BMjD

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/BF01066630
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1977 Case~Comment A Therapist's Duty to Potential Victims A Nonthreatening View of Tarasoff What is the scope of a therapist's duty to protect persons from threats made against them by patients during therapy? If there is a duty owed to the public as well as to the patient, how are any conflicts between the two to be resolved? In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1 the California Supreme Court recently concluded that a therapist does have a duty to exercise care in protect- ing a foreseeable victim from harm threatened by his patient. Debate surrounding the decision has been vigorous. Commentators have criticized the opinion for intruding into the patient-therapist relationship, 2 conflicting with the therapist's primary duty to serve his patient, 8 and constraining the practice of psychotherapy. 4 1Taras0ff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 529 P.2d 342, 118 Cal. Rptr. 129 (1974), vacated, 17 Cal.3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976). [T]he primary inadequacy of the Court's holding is not that it does not give serious thought to protecting the public, but rather that the duty it would impose is self-defeating, increasing,

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Sep 1, 1977

There are no references for this article.