Case Analysis Of Tarasoff Case

In the case of Ricter v. Singlett Memorial Hospital Dr. Larry Posten had the duty to warn the third party, Emily’s parents, that their daughter was in danger. Davis Copitt was the patient of Dr. Posten, and he mentioned that he was planning to kill his classmate Emily Ricter. Dr. Posten requested that the campus police would detain Copitt, the police decided that Copitt was sane and released him from detention. The police and the psychologists from the university failed to warn Emily Ricter and her family of potential harm. A California law states “a psychotherapist may incur a duty to warn and protect a “reasonably identifiable” victim when a patient “has communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence”

For instance, California courts have found special relationships in Ellis v. D'Angelo (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 310, 253 P.2d 675 (upholding a cause of action against parents who failed to warn a babysitter of the violent proclivities of their child), Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352 (upholding suit against the state for failure to warn foster parents of the dangerous tendencies of their ward), Morgan v. County of Yuba (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 938, 41 Cal.Rptr. 508 (sustaining cause of action against a sheriff who had promised to warn decedent before releasing a dangerous prisoner, but failed to do so). (Tarasoff, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 436, fn. 9, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334.) And in Tarasoff, a therapist was told by his patient that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. The therapist and his supervisors predicted the patient presented a serious danger of violence. In fact he did, for he carried out his threat. The court held the patient-therapist relationship was enough to create a duty to exercise reasonable care to

The duty to warn and protect is the result of the Supreme Court case Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. (Gehring 1982) In this case the courts decided that a psychotherapist having knowledge of the

Fourth ethical issue I spotted was the relationship was deepened when Dr. Lowenstein asked Tom to coach her son in football. This is an indicator of a dual relationship that should be prohibited. Football is a contact sport and this created a relationship between Tom and Susan’s son. The relationship escalated as Tom and the son we rolling around in the grass and became close as summer went on. This is an unreasonable distance between client and Susan’s personal life.

Regarding step 4, while there are no laws which pertain to this particular case as it does not involve a sexual relationship, but there are regulations and professional standards one must adhere to. Step 4 and step 5 are closely related and are the crux of this ethical dilemma. Ethics codes of all major mental health associations mandate that therapists/supervisors

The court held the psychologist responsible for the murder of his girlfriend and for not informing of the intent to harm. I believe Justice Tobriner said it best, “the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.”

The client and his mother was thrilled at the idea. The mother was excited because she believed that her son constantly seeks to establish a relationship with his father, who hasn’t made any strides to do so. The son was excited because he stated that he would like to see his father more often and spend more quality time with him. The client was willing to see his father in a therapeutic environment if that’s what it takes to get him involved. I met with the father to schedule a family session with him and the client. During the initial contact with the father, he appeared nonchalant and apathetic towards the therapy. He made statements such as “boys will be boys” to explain his son’s behavior and seemed genuinely uninterested in the idea of family therapy.

I selected the article “Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas” for review, as it applies to the state in which I reside. The article cites Texas Health and Safety Codes, based on a 1999 Texas Supreme Court ruling that states counselors do not have a duty to warn or protect. Having a duty to warn and protect is defined as protecting clients or others from perceived harm (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014). An example would be that a client tells their counselor in a confidential session that he is considering stabbing his ex-girlfriend. The duty to warn would mean the counselor should notify authorities and the ex-girlfriend thus breaking confidentiality. The duty to protect would be to admit client to a facility for the client to be assessed for a propensity for violence towards the ex-girlfriend. This became important after a 1969 incident where a counselor, had a client expressed harm towards a girl and the counselor contacted the authorities, yet never contacted the girl, who was subsequently killed by the client a few months later, known as the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014).

These three characters in this vignette brought up many good questions related to confidentiality, mandated reporting privileged information, and the Therapists responsibility related to reporting suspected child abuse, elder abuse and/or suicidal ideations, and the Therapists responsibility to warn third parties if it is apparent that they are in imminent danger. Constance states she believed the victim should be allowed to win in this case as they failed to avoid an avoidable harm. In so saying it is obvious to me that confidentiality cannot be an absolute, nor do we work in a perfect world. So as one goes forward working as a therapist and the mental health field it is important to understand the standards of our profession and how it is important for us to know whether a victim is in peril and that we always have the duty to warn or protect individuals in our care are affected by those that we provide mental health care for

There are several ethical dilemmas that the mental health professionals that are working as a team will face including “ensuring that the client has given informed consent, maintaining client confidentiality, and involving professionals, paraprofessionals, and family in appropriate coordinated processes that benefit the client” (Paproski & Haverkamp, 2000, p.96).

The ethical dilemma I wish to explore is The Duty to Warn. This refers to the duty of a counselor, therapist to breach one of the most important bonds between a client and a therapist; the law of confidentiality. The therapist has the right to break confidentiality without the fear of being brought up for legal action. If the therapist believes that the client poses a danger, or is a threat to himself, someone else, or society as a whole, the therapist must decide how serious of a threat the client may be, then if he decides it’s a serious issue, he must notify the person in danger, which would e the third party, or the police, or other people who may be in the

Sometimes those situations are very dangerous for the client, the therapist and unbiased observers. The counselor will then be left with a few ethical decisions to make as far as protecting those that are facing harm to themselves and others or possibly safeguarding the public (Corey, G., Corey, M., Corey, C. & Callanan, P., 2015). Although observation alone, is often difficult to see if a client is dangerous to himself or a potential safety issue to others. Because of that, there are assessment tools that are used that will help to assist the therapist to make that determination. The therapist will face some ethical challenges around confidentially and deciding on remaining confidential to the client or protecting the public (Corey et al., 2015).

Because of the doctors’ profession, a psychiatrist must abide by the ethic of nonmaleficence when it comes to their patients. This article is true, “When conflicts occur among psychologists’ obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm” (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, n.d.). For this profession, this is very important because their judgment can have a serious effect on a person mind. If there were no ethics to guide them not to do no harm, psychology could become an unethical profession within the health care system. This ethic could also be the reason for the raise of concern that Dr. McHale has for the detainee.

The supervisor is ultimately liable for the welfare of the supervisee’s clients. The supervisee is expected to discuss with the supervisor the counseling process and individual concerns of each client. Inform supervisor immediately of any of the following incidents: restraint, violence to themselves or others, suicidal thoughts, breach of appropriate boundaries, violations of confidentiality and/or clients rights, any disclosure of abuse or neglect. The supervisor must be available by phone, web-camera, or in person to answer clinical questions that correspond directly to the clients’

The second ethical issue occurred when the psychologist disclosed information about Mr. Hartwig’s to his psychiatrist without Mr. Hartwig’s consent. The psychologist motivations for contacting Mr. Hartwig’s psychiatrist appears to be ethical. He was attempting to establish a collaborative relationship with the psychiatrist in order to maximize the effectiveness of each for of treatment in order to best serve the client (APA, 2002). However, The APA guidelines on stipulate that while psychologist should attempt to establish a collaborative relationship they must request release from the client before disclosing confidential information (APA, 2002). The client shared the name of his psychiatrist, but there was no evidence that the client consented to an exchange of information between the two professionals. In addition to the psychologists’ obligation to obtain consent to disclose information to the psychiatrist; he was also ethically obligated to ensure that the client understands what he/she is giving consent for. Koocher and Keith-Spiegel, suggest elements that a release-of-information form should include; who the information is to be released to, and any limitations on the information to be released (2008). If the client consented to disclosure with the