References in periodicals archive ?
Psychiatrists might believe they are required to do so because of the apparent similarity between reporting a past crime and the public protection obligation associated with the Tarasoff decision.
This serves to mitigate the effect of the Tarasoff decision.
Some states support the duty to warn established by the Tarasoff decision by requiring the violation of confidentiality in cases of life-threatening behavior toward others (Reamer, 1994).
An alternative to the traditional negligence analysis combines the type of analysis in Myers with the Tarasoff decision.
The Tarasoff decision has since been extended by at least 12 states and several federal jurisdictions to include violent acts against persons in close relationship to an identified victim," against property, (9) and when therapists "should have known" danger existed.
On this question the courts, in contrast to the controversy over civil liability which followed the Tarasoff decision, have been silent.
Many practitioners have misunderstood the famed Tarasoff decision of the California Supreme Court--which did not, contrary to popular belief, create a "duty to warn.
The State of California was still struggling with the Tarasoff decision as late as 1985.
For instance, the Tarasoff decisions in the mid-1970s have had an impact on the counseling profession by requiring counselors to warn authorities or third parties outside of the counseling relationship of potential danger from a client.
Their judgments about the acceptability of breaking confidentiality conformed to the principle of the Tarasoff decisions (Totten, Lamb & Reeder, 1990).