Abstract
The California Supreme Court's Tarasoff decision was the seminal case in the area of the duty to protect third parties from the potential of violence from patients. Tarasoff-related issues have now spread to many jurisdictions in the country. This article will pay particular attention to the cases influencing law in Washington and Oregon and will review the clinical duty to protect others from your patients that existed before Tarasoff, as physicians were taught to work between privilege and civil commitment statutes. The California law designed to limit Tarasoff liability and the reasons why legislators should be willing to support such legislation are discussed.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bloom J. D., Rogers J. L., Manson S. M. After Oregon's insanity defense: a comparison of conditional release and hospitalization. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1982;5(3-4):391–402. doi: 10.1016/0160-2527(82)90032-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mills M. J., Sullivan G., Eth S. Protecting third parties: a decade after Tarasoff. Am J Psychiatry. 1987 Jan;144(1):68–74. doi: 10.1176/ajp.144.1.68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rogers J. L., Bloom J. D., Manson S. M. Oregon's Psychiatric Security Review Board: a comprehensive system for managing insanity acquittees. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 1986;(484):86–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stone A. A. Vermont adopts Tarasoff: a real barn-burner. Am J Psychiatry. 1986 Mar;143(3):352–355. doi: 10.1176/ajp.143.3.352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]