Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:41:19.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The psychiatrist’s duty to protect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2015

James L. Knoll IV
James L. Knoll IV*
Affiliation:
Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: James L. Knoll IV, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Director of Forensic Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, 750 East Adams, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA. (Email: knollj@upstate.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Responding to the California Supreme Court’s decision and its related legal obligations in Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California over 30 years ago has become a standard part of mental health practice. This case influenced legal requirements governing therapists’ duty to protect third parties in nearly every state in the country. The final ruling in Tarasoff emphasized that therapists have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by their patients.

This article will provide a brief overview and update on duty to protect legal requirements. Clinical guidelines for addressing threats and the duty to protect will be discussed, along with risk management approaches. The article will conclude with a sample vignette illustrating these principles.

Keywords

Assessmentdutymanagementpatient threatsriskTarasoff
Type
Review Articles
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 20 , Special Issue 3: Violence in the Psychiatric Setting , June 2015 , pp. 215 - 222
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
2. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 529 P.2d 553 (Cal. 1974).Google Scholar
3. Slovenko, R. Confidentiality and testimonial privilege. In: Rosner R. ed. Principles & Practice of Forensic Psychiatry. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003: 145.Google Scholar
4. Buckner, F, Firestone, M. “Where the public peril begins”: 25 years after Tarasoff. J Leg Med. 2000; 21(2): 187–222.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Cal. Civ. Code § 43.92 (2013).Google Scholar
6. Weinstock, R, Bonnici, D, Seroussi, A, Leong, G. No duty to warn in California: now unambiguously solely a duty to protect. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014; 42(1): 101–108.Google Scholar
7. Lipari v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 497 F.Supp. 185 (D.Neb. 1980).Google Scholar
8. Naidu v. Laird, 539 A.2d 1064 (Del. 1988).Google Scholar
9. Peck v. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc. 146 Vt. 61, 499 A.2d 422 (1985).Google Scholar
10. Mossman, D. How a rabbi’s sermon resolved my Tarasoff conflict. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2004; 32(4): 359–363.Google ScholarPubMed
11. Soulier, M, Maislen, A, Beck, J. Status of the psychiatric duty to protect, circa 2006. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2010; 38(4): 457–473.Google Scholar
12. Mossman, D. Critique of pure risk assessment or, Kant meets Tarasoff. University of Cincinnati Law Review. 2006; 75: 523–609.Google Scholar
13. Appelbaum, P, Gutheil, T. Clinical Handbook of Psychiatry & the Law. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.Google Scholar
14. Slovenko, R. Psychotherapy and confidentiality. Cleveland State Law Review. 1975; 24(3): 2 http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol24/iss3/2.Google ScholarPubMed
15. Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
16. Buchanan, A, Binder, R, Norko, M, Swartz, M. Psychiatric violence risk assessment. Am J Psychiatry. 2012; 169(3): 340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Monahan, J, Skeem, JL. The evolution of violence risk assessment. CNS Spectr. 2014; 19(5): 419–424.Google Scholar
18. Turner, J, Gelles, M. Threat Assessment: A Risk Management Approach. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press; 2003.Google Scholar
19. Borum, R, Fein, R, Vossekuil, B, Berglund, J. Threat assessment: defining an approach for evaluating risk of targeted violence. Behav Sci Law. 1999; 17(3): 323–337.Google Scholar
20. Hinman, D, Cook, P. A multidisciplinary team approach to threat assessment. Journal of Threat Assessment. 2001; 1(1): 17–33.Google Scholar
21. Warren, LJ, Mullen, PE, Ogloff, JR. A clinical study of those who utter threats to kill. Behav Sci Law. 2011; 29(2): 141–154.Google Scholar
22. Borum, R, Reddy, M. Assessing violence risk in Tarasoff situations: a fact-based model of inquiry. Behav Sci Law. 2001; 19(3): 375–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Meloy, JR, O’Toole, ME. The concept of leakage in threat assessment. Behav Sci Law. 2011; 29(4): 513–527.Google Scholar
24. White, S, Cawood, J. Threat management of stalking cases. In: Meloy J. ed. The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1998: 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92; 834 P.2d 786.Google Scholar
26. Dobbs, D. The Law of Torts. St.Paul, MN: West Group; 2000.Google Scholar
27. Mossman, D. Tips to make documentation easier, faster, more satisfying. Current Psychiatry. 2008; 7(2): 80–86.Google Scholar
28. Simon, RI. Suicide risk assessment forms: form over substance? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2009; 37(3): 290–293.Google Scholar
29. Simon, RI. Improving suicide risk assessment: avoiding common pitfalls. Psychiatric Times. December 1, 2011. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/improving-suicide-risk-assessment.Google Scholar
30. Black, H. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publising Co.; 2004.Google Scholar
31. Ballek v. Aldana-Bernier, NY Slip Op 02823 (2d Dept. 2012).Google Scholar
32. Mills, J, Kroner, D, Morgan, R. Clinician’s Guide to Violence Risk Assessment. New York: The Guilford Press; 2011.Google Scholar
33. Knoll, J. Violence risk assessment for mental health professionals. In: Jamieson A., Moenssens A. eds. Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2009: 2597–2602.Google Scholar
34. Douglas, K, Hart, S, Webster, C, Belfrage, H. HCR-20V3: Assessing Risk of Violence—User Guide . Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 2013.Google Scholar
35. Webster, C, Haque, Q, Hucker, S. Violence Risk—Assessment and Management: Advances Through Structured Professional Judgment and Sequential Redirections, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.Google Scholar