Tarasoff V. Regents: A Case Study
Violence Risk Assessment Essay
When an individual seeks out a therapist, they are morelikely to be struggling with a mental disorder. Many individual’s struggle with depression, anxiety and phobias. Some studies have represented that more than 25% of adults received mental health treatment, yet the individuals who received mental health treatment and received medication, but no therapy. Individuals may seek treatment to treat the problem they believe is controlling their life, or a form of guidance. Throughout the following essay we will be considering the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California and discuss why the following case is important to mental health clinicians. Along with describing the violence risk assessment …show more content…
This case creates issues on psychiatrist not being able to accurately predict the dangerousness of their client. With the increasing approach on the importance to reducing violence. Psychiatrist have since been utilizing different instruments and approaches to measure violence within their patients. The violent risk assessment instrument is decision making undertaking in which is utilized on individual’s future violent behavior is of concern. “In relation to mental health services, this includes reducing violence by people with mental disorders to themselves or others,” (Roychowdhury, & Adshead, 2014 p.78).Despite mental health disorder being a slight influence to the risk of violence compared to others such as substance abuse, their still needs to be a relatively similar approach on handling the possible outcome. These following measure in which clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff would be addressing the likelihood of whether or not something bad will happen. “Risk assessment is therefore about assessing the likelihood that something bad will happen, which will cause distress and harm to others: or, to put it another way, risk = hazard + outrage”( Roychowdhury, & Adshead, 2014 p.780). In this case, the psychiatrist would then warn the individual if they feel after completing a risk assessment that they may pose great
When an individual seeks out a therapist, they are morelikely to be struggling with a mental disorder. Many individual’s struggle with depression, anxiety and phobias. Some studies have represented that more than 25% of adults received mental health treatment, yet the individuals who received mental health treatment and received medication, but no therapy. Individuals may seek treatment to treat the problem they believe is controlling their life, or a form of guidance. Throughout the following essay we will be considering the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California and discuss why the following case is important to mental health clinicians. Along with describing the violence risk assessment …show more content…
This case creates issues on psychiatrist not being able to accurately predict the dangerousness of their client. With the increasing approach on the importance to reducing violence. Psychiatrist have since been utilizing different instruments and approaches to measure violence within their patients. The violent risk assessment instrument is decision making undertaking in which is utilized on individual’s future violent behavior is of concern. “In relation to mental health services, this includes reducing violence by people with mental disorders to themselves or others,” (Roychowdhury, & Adshead, 2014 p.78).Despite mental health disorder being a slight influence to the risk of violence compared to others such as substance abuse, their still needs to be a relatively similar approach on handling the possible outcome. These following measure in which clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff would be addressing the likelihood of whether or not something bad will happen. “Risk assessment is therefore about assessing the likelihood that something bad will happen, which will cause distress and harm to others: or, to put it another way, risk = hazard + outrage”( Roychowdhury, & Adshead, 2014 p.780). In this case, the psychiatrist would then warn the individual if they feel after completing a risk assessment that they may pose great