| The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 1856640 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized. |
| | |
Authors:
|
G B Leong; S Eth; J A Silva |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Case Reports; Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Journal of forensic sciences Volume: 36 ISSN: 0022-1198 ISO Abbreviation: J. Forensic Sci. Publication Date: 1991 May |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 1991-08-28 Completed Date: 1991-08-28 Revised Date: 2004-12-14 |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 0375370 Medline TA: J Forensic Sci Country: UNITED STATES |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 728-35 Citation Subset: E; IM |
Affiliation:
|
UCLA School of Medicine. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
Adult California Confidentiality / legislation & jurisprudence* Ethics Fantasy Female Firesetting Behavior Forensic Psychiatry* Homicide Humans Male Mentally Ill Persons* Professional Competence Professional-Patient Relations* Rape |
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Alleged brain damage, diminished capacity, mens rea, and misuse of medical concepts.
Next Document: Interpretation of unusual wounds caused by firearms.