Premium
Moral justification for Tarasoff ‐type warnings and breach of confidentiality: a clinician's perspective
Author(s) -
Gutheil Thomas G.
Publication year - 2001
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.446
Subject(s) - confidentiality , context (archaeology) , fiduciary , duty to warn , duty to protect , poison control , moral injury , duty , perspective (graphical) , dilemma , psychology , agency (philosophy) , human factors and ergonomics , computer security , medicine , law , medical emergency , social psychology , political science , sociology , computer science , paleontology , philosophy , social science , epistemology , artificial intelligence , biology
After brief review of the background and context of the Tarasoff case and its impact on clinicians, the author examines the “ Tarasoff warning,” proposed in the 1974 Tarasoff opinion, from a moral position, with brief discussion of its clinical and risk management dimensions. Moral issues considered include confidentiality itself, agency, fiduciary duty, a shift in the victim paradigm, the emergency context, a novel risk, and a proposed approach. The dilemma presented by the original Tarasoff fact situation is re‐examined. The author stresses the need for individualized responses to the risks posed by patients. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.