Premium
The normative and conceptual foundations of a clinical duty to protect
Author(s) -
Quattrocchi Michael R.,
Schopp Robert F.
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
behavioral sciences and the law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.649
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1099-0798
pISSN - 0735-3936
DOI - 10.1002/bsl.2370110206
Subject(s) - normative , duty , poison control , human factors and ergonomics , computer security , injury prevention , suicide prevention , occupational safety and health , psychology , computer science , risk analysis (engineering) , medicine , medical emergency , political science , law
The continuing controversy surrounding the Tarasoff inspired duty to protect as developed by the courts and legislatures has not adequately weighed the jurisprudential foundations of such an obligation. The authors argue that the duty's misguided thrust of social control grounded in character and status seriously violates broad principles of political morality underlying the law of social control. They conceptualize an alternative—a clinical duty to protect—that coheres with these underlying values and the limits of professional abilities. They contend that any extra‐clinical intervention on the part of the psychotherapist entails a role transformation requiring independent justification.