Tarasoff decision

Discussion in 'Step I' started by Phloston, 05.06.12.

  1. SDN is made possible through member donations, sponsorships, and our volunteers. Learn about SDN's nonprofit mission.
  1. Phloston

    Phloston Lifetime Donor 2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    01.17.12
    Messages:
    3,455
    Location:
    Osaka, Japan
    Verified
    Physician
    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,
     
  2. SDN Members don't see this ad. About the ads.
  3. Convalaria

    Convalaria

    Joined:
    04.11.12
    Messages:
    194
    Status:
    Medical Student
    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.
     
  4. Phloston

    Phloston Lifetime Donor 2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    01.17.12
    Messages:
    3,455
    Location:
    Osaka, Japan
    Verified
    Physician
    I'm wondering if there are certain times that law enforcement is contacted as well (e.g. sometimes, always, never).
     
  5. DrDJShik

    DrDJShik 5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    06.11.08
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Chicago
    Status:
    Medical Student
    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
     
  6. VisionaryTics

    VisionaryTics SeƱor Member 7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    01.13.09
    Messages:
    1,844
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    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.
     
  7. Phloston

    Phloston Lifetime Donor 2+ Year Member

    Joined:
    01.17.12
    Messages:
    3,455
    Location:
    Osaka, Japan
    Verified
    Physician
    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...
     

    Attached Files:

    • FA.jpg
      File size:
      45.2 KB
      Views:
      23
  8. Morsetlis

    Morsetlis Preliminary Medicine 5+ Year Member

    Joined:
    01.22.10
    Messages:
    4,927
    Location:
    St. George's, Grenada
    Status:
    Medical Student
    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?
     

About the ads

Share This Page