Tightropes and tragedies: 25 years of Tarasoff.
In 1976 the California Supreme Court decided the case of Thrasoff v Regents of the University of California. That case has had very significant effects on psychiatric practice on both sides of the Atlantic, and its very name is instantly recognizable to most psychiatrists. Yet the details of the case are often misunderstood or misquoted; as a legal precedent it was rapidly superceded, and is now largely redundant. Twenty-five years on it seems appropriate to revisit the case itself, and its impact on contemporary psychiatric practice. English law has yet to impose a similar duty, but two leading cases raising similar issues are also described.
Jones
Chris
C
Norvic Clinic, Norwich NR7 OHT.
D000328:Adult; D002140:California; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003617:Dangerous Behavior; D017007:Duty to Warn / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004739:England; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations; D011613:Psychotherapy / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence