Interoffice Memo
Interoffice Memo BSHS 305
MEMORANDUM
To: All Staff
Re: Recent ruling in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Date: July 2, 1976
A recent decision in the rehearing of the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case, mandates that not only should mental health professionals and social service workers warn a potential victim of possible harm by their client, but there is also a duty to protect the potential vicitm. This can be carried out through any or all of the following steps:
Warn the intended victim
Notify your superiors
Notify law enforcement
Or any other reasonable steps to protect the possible victim from the client.
This recent ruling further mandates that we, as human service workers, have a duty to not only warn, but a duty to protect a potential victim from the intentions of the client / patient. This is a legal way to not be bound by confidentiality, when another human beings life is in danger. Not only do we now have a way to protect, we are now legally and ethically obligated to follow through on notifications and the expectations are that all staff will abide by this new ruling.
The current Code of Ethics, in which it is expected that confidential information will be shared with law enforcement or any others that are necessary to ensure protection of an intended victim of a client, is reflected here in the recent ruling. The following Code of Ethics expectations are to be followed:
Notification of authorities and / or an intended victim is expected:
1. When the client is dangerous to self or others
2. When there is suspicion of abuse or neglect
3. When the client brings charges against the counselor
4. When the client has already introduced privileged material into litigation
As you can see in points number one (1) and two (2), we are legally obligated to follow through with notice if the client is potentially
MEMORANDUM
To: All Staff
Re: Recent ruling in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Date: July 2, 1976
A recent decision in the rehearing of the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case, mandates that not only should mental health professionals and social service workers warn a potential victim of possible harm by their client, but there is also a duty to protect the potential vicitm. This can be carried out through any or all of the following steps:
Warn the intended victim
Notify your superiors
Notify law enforcement
Or any other reasonable steps to protect the possible victim from the client.
This recent ruling further mandates that we, as human service workers, have a duty to not only warn, but a duty to protect a potential victim from the intentions of the client / patient. This is a legal way to not be bound by confidentiality, when another human beings life is in danger. Not only do we now have a way to protect, we are now legally and ethically obligated to follow through on notifications and the expectations are that all staff will abide by this new ruling.
The current Code of Ethics, in which it is expected that confidential information will be shared with law enforcement or any others that are necessary to ensure protection of an intended victim of a client, is reflected here in the recent ruling. The following Code of Ethics expectations are to be followed:
Notification of authorities and / or an intended victim is expected:
1. When the client is dangerous to self or others
2. When there is suspicion of abuse or neglect
3. When the client brings charges against the counselor
4. When the client has already introduced privileged material into litigation
As you can see in points number one (1) and two (2), we are legally obligated to follow through with notice if the client is potentially