Posted on Sep 5, 2016
When doctors diagnose danger: Breaking patient-doctor confidentiality isn’t that simple
1.06K
7
2
2
2
0
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 2
Suspended Profile
PO1 Tony Holland - The article misconstrues the obligation. Physicians, therapists, and other healthcare personnel have a mandatory obligation to report such cases to the authorities . . . but not a specific obligation to go beyond protected disclosure to warn named targets. This would be a violation of the HIPAA Act and Medical Ethics unless specifically protected by disclosure law. Sandy :)
"Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual." The essence of the revised standard is the police, the courts, and other civil authorities are most likely to be in a better position to protect the target than the targets themselves. There has been no deluge of lawsuits arising from this case - but anyone who practices must have good malpractice insurance coverage to defend and compensate all potential litigation risks.
"Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual." The essence of the revised standard is the police, the courts, and other civil authorities are most likely to be in a better position to protect the target than the targets themselves. There has been no deluge of lawsuits arising from this case - but anyone who practices must have good malpractice insurance coverage to defend and compensate all potential litigation risks.
PO1 Tony Holland
Thanks for the clarification
(1)
(0)
I bet Salon would never advocate violating attorney client privilege. Here's the problem, people go to see a mental health professional expecting privacy. They don't get it. They stop going. The cycle gets worse.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next