The Duty to Warn Revisited: Contemporary Issues within the North American Context

The following review discusses legal, ethical, and clinical developments that have ensued as a consequence of the case of Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of California in 1976. The Tarasoff ruling is examined in terms of implications for law and the professional practice of psychology...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of ethics in mental health 2012-01, Vol.7, p.1-5
Main Authors: Zachariades, Fotini, Cabrera, Christine
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical psychology
Dangerousness
Mandatory reporting
Professional practices
Third parties
Viewpoint
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The following review discusses legal, ethical, and clinical developments that have ensued as a consequence of the case of Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of California in 1976. The Tarasoff ruling is examined in terms of implications for law and the professional practice of psychology, including clinical implications and practical guidelines, and issues of malpractice, negligence and liability. The duty to warn/protect, the related duty towards third parties, expansions of the duty to warn/ protect ruling, and its subsequent legal implications are discussed. Furthermore, the concepts of dangerousness and foreseeability from a legal viewpoint, and risk assessment and prediction from a clinical viewpoint are also addressed. Overall, the impact of the duty to warn/protect on the current professional practice of psychology is examined, and corresponding clinical implications are noted. Adapted from the source document.
ISSN:1916-2405
1916-2405