title: Tarasoff: protective privilege versus public peril.
abstract: The author reviews the decision made by the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California, et al., which stipulated that therapists must warn authorities specified by law as well as potential victims of possible dangerous actions of their patients. He states the basic points of the Northern California Psychiatric Society's amicus curiae brief on behalf of the university regents and discusses the issues raised by the Tarasoff decision vis--53a-vis the mental health profession and its dealings with potentially violent individuals.
mesh_terms: D002140:California; D002961:Civil Rights; D003219:Confidentiality; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005260:Female; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D011570:Psychiatry; D011613:Psychotherapy; D012380:Role; D014754:Violence