The case of Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California in 1976 established the legal duty of mental health professionals to warn. In this situation, the therapist did not inform a woman and her parents of the death threats that had been revealed by a mentally ill client. Prosenjit Poddar and Tatiana Tarasoff were both students of the University of California, Berkeley. After interacting for a while, Poddar believed that he was in a serious relationship with Tarasoff. However, Tarasoff was not interested in any romantic relationship and when she revealed this to Poddar, the latter began stalking her and started to experience a mental breakdown ( Cohen, 1978). Because of the mental condition, Poddar went to seek treatment from Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist at UC Berkeley's Cowell Memorial Hospital.
Poddar uttered his plans to kill Tarasoff to Dr. Moore who failed to reveal the information to Tarasoff but instead opted to alert the campus police indicating that Poddar needed hospitalization because he posed danger to others and to himself ( Cohen, 1978). Acting on the directive of the psychologist, Poddar was detained for some time but was later released because he appeared stable, rational and had promised not to come close toTarasoff. All this time, both the police and the psychologist did not inform Tarasoff or her family of the threats. Poddar carried on with his habit of stalking Tarasoff and on 27th October 1969, he murdered her.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Tarasoff's parents filed a lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley and the therapist arguing that they failed to warn their daughter of the threats they knew about. The defendants, on the other hand, held that they are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the patient. While the lower courts ruled in favor of the defendants, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower courts and ruled that confidentiality of the client was secondary to the safety of the public. Based on this case, there are two notable ethical obligations of a psychologist. First, a psychologist is obliged to breach confidentiality in a case where the client poses threat to the third party, the psychologist or to himself. Secondly, the psychologist is required to divulge the information to one who has the capability of taking action against the threat.
Reference
Cohen, R. N. (1978). Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California: The Duty to Warn: Common Law & Statutory Problems for California Psychotherapists. Cal. WL Rev. , 14 , 153.
