When doctors diagnose danger: Breaking patient-doctor confidentiality isn’t that simple

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.

Interesting...

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.