This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Almeta E. Cooper, JD

JAMA. 1982;248(4):431-432.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In 1976, the California Supreme Court held in Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California, 551 P2d 334 (Cal 1976), that when a therapist determines or should determine that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he has an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. Furthermore, the court held that this duty could be discharged in one or more of the following ways: (1) by warning the victim or others likely to apprise the victim of danger; (2) by notifying the police; or (3) by taking whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

This duty imposed by Tarasoff has posed a dilemma to those in the medical community, particularly psychiatrists and psychotherapists. The dilemma arises because complete candor and trust are considered essential elements of the therapist-patient relationship. Disclosure of the patient's confidential communications to a third . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association.

Footnotes
For further information and reprints, write to Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?