Tarasoff Case Study

In clinical psychology, the duty to warn requires a clinician to report reasonable grounds that a client may be in imminent danger of himself to warn others of possible danger (Clarence Watson). Duty to warn is the few exceptions to a client’s right to confidentiality and the therapist’s ethical obligation to maintain confidential obligation. This allows the therapist to have a therapeutic relationship with the client. Reporting this information is now mandated in most states. Clinical assessment in these cases is also important. Sitting with a client and earning their trust, having them confide these feelings is the first step in reporting these thoughts. Some key areas with duty to warn is the importance of clinical assessment, the accuracy of the threat and who should be warned (Clarence Watson).
These threats vary over a spectrum ranging from those that are essentially legally required duties by clinicians, to those based on rights of actual or potential victims to be warned of a specific event. This spectrum is as follows; (1) Warning the risk of violence. (2) Warning of the threat of violence. (3) Requested warning. (4) Criminal victim’s warnings mandated by statute. These four warning practices are distinguished by what occasions or justifies the warnings (PubMed.Gov, n.d.). In the Tarasoff case, the duty to protect, not duty to warn is more accurate. This allows reasonable care to protect in the intended victim. This does not require absolute protection if preventative measures have been made. The real change that was brought about by the Tarasoff decision was the acknowledgment that one of the protective measures, which would constitute a legal obligation depending on the circumstances, was warning the potential victim and law enforcement as