Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. Tarasoff v. Regents (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. The case involved a patient with schizophrenia who killed another man in a motor vehicle crash. '4 A related issue is whether a health care professional has an independent duty to discover that his patient could pose a physical danger to an … As a result, it appears that this is a duty to be discharged by the physician. Regents of University of California.

However, in the present case, it does not render that the doctors had to predict anything, conversely they knew that the killer had wanted to kill the descendant, but negligently failed to warn her. The duty to protect carries broader implications and

The Tarasoff decision, as it is presently interpreted, raises a set of questions that may be problematic from both medical and legal standpoints. 1976), a doctor may be held liable if he fails to warn or disclose his patient's threats against a specific, identifiable third … In other words, neither the Supreme Court ruling in Tarasoff, nor the subsequent “immunity” legislation required (imposed a duty) that therapists notify the police and make reasonable effort to notify the potential victim, but to repeat, under the “immunity” statute, if a therapist takes those two actions she or he is to have immunity from liability. A remarkable example of this was the case of Naidu v. Laird, which further expanded the duty to unidentified victims and unintentional harm. Since the time of Hippocrates, the extent of patients' right to confidentiality has been a topic of debate, with some arguing for total openness and others for absolute and unconditional secrecy ().In Tarasoff v.Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient. How does one practice good clinical judgment? Facts: On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Court Responses to Tarasoff Statutes Claudia Kachigian, MD, JD, and Alan R. Felthous, MD Twenty-three states have enacted Tarasoff statutes applicable to psychiatrists. They allege that on Moore's request, the campus police briefly detained Poddar, but released him when he appeared rational. Although other states could conceivably adopt a similar standard, the ruling does not establish a legal precedent outside of Washington. Unlike Tarasoff, where the patient had made an unequivocal threat to murder a given individual, the patient in McIntosh had never threatened to harm the eventual victim, and thus, it had never occurred to the psychiatrist that the victim was even in danger. Since the first such statute was enacted in California in 1985, a significant number of courts in states with this and similar … Tarasoff (e.g., warn versus protect, permissive versus mandatory). However, beginning with Tarasoff in 1974 and 197611,14, the idea that physicians may have a duty to breach confidentiality when third parties are at risk began to influence the practice of medicine, especially psychiatry. Although the authors are correct in noting the precedent-setting value of Tarasoff, the dissimilarities between Tarasoff and Seth’s case are so numerous as to suggest the selection of another paradigm. The duty to inform implies a similar action, but it has been used in the context of an obligation to inform the potential victim, the police, or the courts. In Tarasoff the duty is based on the relationship to the harm-doer. Twenty-three states have enacted Tarasoff statutes applicable to psychiatrists. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. A summary and case brief of Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. Posted on October 2, ... under similar circumstances. In a similar case (Menendez v. Superior Court, 1992), 49 the same court again acknowledged a qualified and limited “dangerous patient” exception to the therapist‐patient testimonial privilege.