FBS Reponse Paper 3

.pdf

School

California State University, Fresno *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

153

Subject

Psychology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

5

Uploaded by ProfManateeMaster456

Samantha Moua FBS 153: Psych of Crime Dr. Alan Azizian California State University Fresno
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California is a case in the United States that significantly impacted the legal and ethical responsibilities of mental health professionals, particularly concerning the duty to warn and protect potential victims of violent behavior by their patients. In 1969, Prosenjit Poddar, a University of California, Berkeley student, began therapy with psychologist Dr. Lawrence Moore. Poddar confided in Dr. Moore about his intention to harm Tatiana Tarasoff, a fellow student with whom he had become infatuated. Concerned about Poddar's mental state, Dr. Moore requested campus police to detain Poddar for evaluation. However, Poddar was released after a brief period and resumed therapy with a different psychologist. Despite Poddar’s continued expressions of violent intent towards Tatiana Tarasoff, the second psychologist did not inform the potential victim or her family about the threat. Tragically, Poddar carried out his threat and murdered Tatiana in 1970. Following this incident, the Tarasoff family filed a lawsuit against the university, arguing that the mental health professionals had a duty to warn Tatiana or her family about the danger posed by Poddar. The case went through several legal stages, ultimately reaching the California Supreme Court in 1976. Ultimately, the court established a duty called the Tarasoff Duty; this implies that mental health professionals have an obligation to protect individuals whom their patients specifically identify as potential victims of violence. This duty includes the responsibility to warn the potential victim or take other reasonable steps to prevent harm. The court established that when a therapist determines or reasonably should have determined that a patient poses a severe danger of violence to others, they must exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim. This decision marked a departure from traditional therapist-patient confidentiality, highlighting the importance of public safety.
The Tarasoff ruling had a lasting influence on the development of laws and ethical guidelines in many states, shaping the duty to warn and protect mental health. In cases of credible threats of harm from patients, mental health professionals are expected to balance maintaining confidentiality and protecting potential victims. The case has become a cornerstone in discussions about the delicate balance between patient confidentiality and the responsibility to prevent injury to others in the mental health context. My reaction to Dr. Lynne Fenton’s for not placing Holmes under involuntary psychiatric evaluation is not shocking but slightly concerning. I understand why she didn’t do it because she needed to conduct further research and have the BETA team help her investigate. She did not have plausible cause as to why she would put Holmes in a psychiatric evaluation. Due to this, Dr. Fenton received massive, threatening phone calls from people who blamed her for the deaths of those from the mass killing. This situation will serve as a lesson for everyone. You can never assume so quickly that people who say these things are kidding. Such light threats or any sort of concerning behavior that seems off needs to get help and be resolved quickly. This situation could’ve been avoided if he had been admitted for evaluation. Some considerations about what might have happened if Dr. Lynne Fenton had initiated psychiatric hospitalization for James Holmes would be evaluation/treatment, risk management, and community safety. Involuntary psychiatric hospitalization typically involves a thorough assessment of the individual's mental health status. If Holmes had been involuntarily hospitalized, mental health professionals would likely have assessed his condition, diagnosed any mental health disorders, and developed a treatment plan. The primary goal of psychiatric hospitalization in cases involving potential harm to self or others is to ensure the safety of the individual and those around them. Holmes would have been closely monitored, and
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help