Tarasoff vs Regents

-By Timothy Lyons

A discussion of the implications of the Tarasoff vs Regents of the University of California case on confidentiality.

Tarasoff vs Regents

Could confidentiality be a barrier to help in some cases? There were actually two decisions made in the Tarasoff vs Regents case. (Knapp, Younggren, VandeCreek, Harris, & Martin, 2013) The First decision was made and it stated that the Psychologist had a duty to warn the identified intended victim. The second stated that the Psychologist had a duty to protect the identified victim. The second decision in Tarasoff vs Regents was narrower and it showed ways in which the psychologist could discharge the duty by means other than breaking confidentiality such as voluntary or involuntary commitment or working more closely with the client. In the same way that having an ethics code makes it easier for me to set boundaries, this case also makes it easier for me to decide how to do my job in cases where one of my clients makes explicit threats against an identifiable victim.

An Opinion

I would hate to think that a person could be murdered because one of my clients who had expressed their intent to kill had gone out and done the deed. This is the basis for Tarasoff vs Regents. Although I would have to assess the threat, one of my main roles as a therapist is to do no harm. In allowing this kind of thing to happen, I would be doing harm to not just the victim, but to my client and society that surrounds the victim and the client. It seems as though if I have done my job then my client would understand my duties and the extent of confidentiality. This area is specific and I would do my duty even if it meant breaking confidentiality.

I believe that this case helped to better define confidentiality and its limits. It does not seem that it harmed confidentiality. When a client does harm and the result is death the psychologist also suffers in so many ways. When a client presents this to a therapist, the ability to have powers to break confidentiality to protect human life is seems like a blessing.

References

American Psychological Association 2010 Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2003 ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.  201604271742031248488665

Knapp, S., Younggren, J. N., VandeCreek, L., Harris, E., & Martin, J. N. (2013). Assessing and managing risk in psychological practice: An indivicualized approach (2nd ed.). Rockviller, MD: The Trust.

LexisNexis 2015 California Board of Psychology Laws and RegulationsLexisNexis. (2015). California Board of Psychology Laws and Regulations (2015 ed.). Charlottesville, VA: LexisNexis.  201604161236441130416155

Liang, L. T., Davis, A. S., Arnold, T. A., & Benjamin, A. (2013). Ethics for Psychologist: A Casebook Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Consumer Resources- Patient Bill of Rights – California Psychological Association. (n.d.). Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.cpapsych.org/?52 201604150647011537058473