There is an exception to the rule
There is an Exception to the Rule
There is an Exception to the Rule
This memo is in relation to the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Tarasoff (1976). Here is a brief history of this case. In October of 1969, Prosenjit Poddar murdered Tatiana Tarasoff. Prior this incident, he had disclosed his intentions of wanting to hurt Tatianna to his therapist Dr. Lawrence Moore, a Psychologist at the University of California. Although this information was made available to the campus police, they failed to detain him. Tatiana’s parents filed a lawsuit because the police failed to take action after receiving this information and their daughter Tatianna should have been warned of Poddar’s intentions to hurt her. Doctor Moore and the Police stated that they were under no obligation to report that information, and, therefore, not responsible for his behavior. However, the Court ruled that a Therapist can override the client’s rights to privacy when there is the potential for harm to others, although the police officer in this case not was given immunity and not held liable.
This case gives birth to a law known as “duty to warn,” that affects those in the helping profession. Forcing a human service professional to disclose information revealed in private, when others are at risk of being harmed.
Now, those who are the helping profession is in an unusual predicament bound by privacy and confidentiality laws. However, it relieves them of the legalities when such information needs to be shared. Although it is a breach in privacy, it is important to report incidents when the security of a client or others is at risk. If you are uncertain of what and what not to report, consult with your colleagues or other professionals. The client should be made aware of this law at the beginning of a relationship so he or she is aware of your obligations to report such incidents. It is important to know that this may interfere with the trust that is needed in the
There is an Exception to the Rule
This memo is in relation to the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Tarasoff (1976). Here is a brief history of this case. In October of 1969, Prosenjit Poddar murdered Tatiana Tarasoff. Prior this incident, he had disclosed his intentions of wanting to hurt Tatianna to his therapist Dr. Lawrence Moore, a Psychologist at the University of California. Although this information was made available to the campus police, they failed to detain him. Tatiana’s parents filed a lawsuit because the police failed to take action after receiving this information and their daughter Tatianna should have been warned of Poddar’s intentions to hurt her. Doctor Moore and the Police stated that they were under no obligation to report that information, and, therefore, not responsible for his behavior. However, the Court ruled that a Therapist can override the client’s rights to privacy when there is the potential for harm to others, although the police officer in this case not was given immunity and not held liable.
This case gives birth to a law known as “duty to warn,” that affects those in the helping profession. Forcing a human service professional to disclose information revealed in private, when others are at risk of being harmed.
Now, those who are the helping profession is in an unusual predicament bound by privacy and confidentiality laws. However, it relieves them of the legalities when such information needs to be shared. Although it is a breach in privacy, it is important to report incidents when the security of a client or others is at risk. If you are uncertain of what and what not to report, consult with your colleagues or other professionals. The client should be made aware of this law at the beginning of a relationship so he or she is aware of your obligations to report such incidents. It is important to know that this may interfere with the trust that is needed in the