Tarasoff decision

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Under the Tarasoff decision, must the physician (e.g. psychiatrist) always report confidentiality-excepted information to the potential victim AND law enforcement, or just to the potential victim?

Thanks a lot,

Originally Posted by Phloston

Under the Tarasoff decision, must the physician (e.g. psychiatrist) always report confidentiality-excepted information to the potential victim AND law enforcement, or just to the potential victim?

Thanks a lot,

Tarasoff I decision: physicians warn a potential victim if they truly believe the patient he/she may be harmed (e.g. abused spouse)

Tarasoff II decision: physicians warn a potential victim if they truly believe the patient he/she may be harmed AND protect (e.g. children)

This was explanation of one of the Kaplan Qbank questions.

I'm wondering if there are certain times that law enforcement is contacted as well (e.g. sometimes, always, never).

From my experience, you usually see just victim or victim and police but not both as two different choices...i think its always both tho

BRS Behavioral Science says the physician must notify law enforcement or social service agency AND warn the intended victim if the patient poses a credible threat.

Originally Posted by VisionaryTics

BRS Behavioral Science says the physician must notify law enforcement or social service agency AND warn the intended victim if the patient poses a credible threat.

Nice. I'm ~30 pages into BRS BS right now, so eventually I'll get to that ;-)

This is why I had asked (PrntScr image from USMLE Rx):

Notice that in this case, the potential victim AND law enforcement need to be contacted.

However, I recall having seen a question in Rx some time ago where the patient was diagnosed with HIV and strictly said that he didn't plan on telling his partner but still planned on using appropriate protection. In this case, the physician needed to contact the patient's partner, but NOT law enforcement, because they said a crime of intent hadn't been present.

Fun stuff...

There is no intention of crime. You do not wear gloves to intend to poke yourself with a needle, even if you have no training in giving injections or the proper methods of needle disposal.

Note: I neither agree nor sympathize with the patient, but how do you compare that case to a parent smoking with children in the house?