Moral justification for Tarasoff-type warnings and breach of confidentiality: a clinician's perspective.
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.
Gutheil
T G
TG
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
D002140:California; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D017007:Duty to Warn / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D009014:Morals; D011613:Psychotherapy; D014481:United States; D014754:Violence