Tarasoft Case Summary

CONFIDENTIALITY AND INFORMED CONSENT

3/12/13

In the case of Tarasoft v Board of Regents of the University of California (1976). On Oct 27, 1969 there was a young lady named Tatiana Tarasoft who was killed by a man named Prosenjit Poddar. Poddar was taken by Tarasoft but realized she did not want to date him. Tarasoft was involved with someone else but gave Poddar the impression she liked him from their intimate encounter. He was so upset because he felt he was being lead on by the victim. He began stalking the victim without her knowledge. She eventually left the country and returned back to the United States. The patient who killed Ms. Tarasoft told his psychologist he was going to kill her two months before he actually
killed her. He confided in his psychologist and let him know he was going to kill Tarasoft. Before the Tarasoft case began psychologists had a duty to their patient not a third party. This made it easy for patients trust the information they were giving their psychologist.
It helped the patient to not be careful about what they were telling the doctor. Once the Tarasoft case was opened up to the courts the Confidentiality between patient and psychologist was over depending on the conversation. If a patient like Poddar comes in with psychological issues a psychotherapist should always take action. The Tarasoft decision is a California decision that imposes a duty on a therapist to warn the appropriate people or person when he/she becomes aware their patient may present a risk of harm to a person or persons. The decision made by the psychologist was not a good one at all because the women were in danger. The psychologist alerted campus police because he took what his patient said serious but did not inform her or the family. The Psychologist suggested Poddar should be hospitalized due to his mental state of mind. The psychologist should have breached the patient confidentiality once he knew third party was unaware of the patient conversation with him. Poddar was let go because he seemed to be mentally stable. The patient was released back in the public even though the police knew he made a death threat about Tarasoft. The psychologist was told by the director of
psychiatry department to get rid of the paperwork on the day of the incident. They felt they did not have to warn Tarasoft or the family about the patient threat because she was not his patient. The Tarasoft decision made the psychologist responsible for failing to make sure the victim was safe. The psychologist and those involved had a duty to inform the patient to give her a chance to go in protective custody. The psychologist decision to not warn the family or victim made him liable to be sued. The psychologist decision also cost the victim her life. Psychologist has a duty to warn the victim. Duty to warn refers to the ethical obligation psychologist has to disclose the risk of suicide or other harm to a third party. Legal duty to warn was established in the case of Tarasoft v Board of regents of the University of California (1976).The therapist-client relationship stays confidential unless the psychologist feel the patient or a victim life is begin threatened by patient. Psychologist has a duty to breach confidentiality between him and the patient is when patient is a danger to themselves or a third party. . Psychologist must protect the third party by warning them of the danger they are in by their patient. Informed consent is by which the treating health care provider disclose appropriate information to a competent patient. Informed consent allows the patient to make a decision to voluntary accept or refuse treatment. Informed refusal is when a patient refused medical treatment recommended. Inform refusal is linked to informed consent process. I believe e patient psychologist will think everything through from now on when their patients are talking to them. Psychologist should still maintain the patient Confidentiality unless a third party is involved and they or the patient is at risk of being harmed. Psychologist has to avoid keeping information that can prevent someone from harm and keep them safe.