The California Supreme Court Case: Tarasoff Case Of 1969

In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled that psychotherapists have a duty to warn and protect potential victims if their patients made threats or otherwise behaved as if they presented a serious danger of violence to another. This ruling happened because of the Tarasoff Case of 1969, in which the court determined the need for therapists to protect the public was more important than protecting patient-therapist confidentiality. (Vitelli 1) The Tarasoff Case is based on the 1969 murder of a University of California Berkley student, Tatiana Tarasoff. The perpetrator, Prosenjit Poddar was a student at the University who had met Tarasoff at a folk dancing class on campus. While they went on several dates, they soon disagreed on the seriousness of their relationship and Poddar became obsessed with her. When Tatiana rebuffed him, Poddar began stalking her and underwent an emotional crisis for which he began psychological counseling at the university medical center. (Vitelli 1)
After awhile, Poddar’s therapist became concerned he was going to kill Tarasoff because of a statement he made.
He sent a letter to campus police, who then interviewed Poddar, but ultimately he was released under the impression he would avoid contact with Tarasoff. The police ordered that the evidence of all notes taken and the letter to the authorities be destroyed, as well as placing Poddar on a 72-hour hold. All while this was happening, no one informed Tarasoff. Some time after Poddar was released, he confronted her at her apartment and ended her life. In the end, the main ethical question is, is it more important to protect patient-therapist confidentiality or to protect the public? (Vitelli
1) There are two competing arguments in this case. The first is that it is more important to protect patient-therapist confidentiality. The second argument is that protecting the public is more imperative than protecting confidentiality. According to the case study, the belief before this case was that supporting effective treatment of mental illness and protecting the rights to patient privacy was essential in safeguarding the confidential character of psychotherapeutic communication. However, the case study goes on to say, “Professional inaccuracy in predicting violence cannot negate the therapist’s duty to protect the threatened victim.” (Beauchamp 416-417) In this situation, the approach from Confucianism and Catholicism would have the same outcome that the Tarasoff Case had, but the way they reach that outcome might differ. For example, the fact that Confucianism takes such a familial approach to situations, especially medically, they would have most likely inquired the family of Poddar and asked their opinions on the overall situation (Barry 95). Also, since Confucianism is based primarily on ethical principles, they would have looked at what would do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Catholicism however, would take a more systematic approach by offering services like baptism and confession in order for God to ultimately forgive Poddar for his thoughts and wipe him of his sins. In the end, both religions would definitively come to the same result that a duty to warn and protect the public trumps patient-therapist confidentiality. Being that I am a nursing student, I know how important the therapeutic relationship is between the professional and the client. Nonetheless, I also know how important it is to protect the public from harm. After considering both sides of this argument, I would make sure to fully evaluate the situation and make sure the patient knows the effects of taking someone’s life. Ultimately, I would make sure the person they targeted would be safe from harm by informing hospital officials and the local authorities because protecting the public from someone who is mentally ill and irrational is the right thing to do.