Published July 30, 1987
by Cambridge University Press .
Written in English
|The Physical Object|
|Number of Pages||153|
Potentially violent patient and the Tarasoff decision in psychiatric practice. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, © (OCoLC) Document Type: Book: All Authors / . The controversy continues over Tarasoff laws, which in many cases require therapists to breach confidentiality over a patient's violent threat. In handing down the Tarasoff decision, the. Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Clinical Insights Monographs: The Potentially Violent Patient and the Tarasoff Decision in Psychiatric Practice by James C. Beck (, Paperback) at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products! When the Patient Threatens Violence: An Empirical Study of Clinical Practice after Tarasoff JAMES c. BECK, MD, PHD The Tarasoff decisions have enunciated a new duty for psychotherapists a duty to possible victims of potentially violent patients. This duty ap parently complicates, and possibly undermines, the treatment of a class ofCited by:
Tarasoff and the dilemma of the dangerous patient: new directions for the 's Article (PDF Available) in Law and psychology review February with Reads How we measure 'reads'Author: Michael Perlin. The first Tarasoff case imposed a duty to warn the victim, whereas the second Tarasoff case implies a duty to protect (Kopels & Kagle, ). There are many concerns about the implications of the Tarasoff case, especially around the confidentiality of the client-social worker relationship and violent clients avoiding treatment. The Tarasoff decision, by imposing on psychiatrists an obligation to warn the intended victim of threats made by a patient, but only under certain vaguely specified circumstances, may stampede. Since the time of Hippocrates, the extent of patients' right to confidentiality has been a topic of debate, with some arguing for total openness and others for absolute and unconditional secrecy ().In Tarasoff s of the University of California (), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a by: 2.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d , P.2d , Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. ), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a rehearing of the Prior history: Appeal from sustained demurrer. In the decade since the Tarasoff decision, psychotherapists have become increasingly concerned about their responsibility to protect potential victims of their patients' violent behavior. Wow - what a problem exists in California! Therapists are in somewhat of a precarious situation for a number of reasons related to a) the famed "Tarasoff" decision and subsequent court decisions interpreting the duty, and b) the statute that sought to give immunity to therapists under specified circumstances related to threatened harm by the patient against reasonably identifiable victims. More editions of Violent Patient Tarasoff Decision (Clinical Insights): Violent Patient Tarasoff Decision (Clinical Insights): ISBN () .