After reading the Tarasoff case and the Basic Choices in the Psychological Study of the Law, discuss how these basic choices relate to the Tarasoff case:
Rights of Individuals versus the Common Good
Equality versus Discretion
To Discover the Truth or to Resolve Conflicts
Responses to peers must be at least 250 words.
Students must follow the APA writing style
This is part two of the assignment the above questions don not need to be answered only a response to the fellow students post
Fellow students post
Zure Negrin
3/3/23, 10:34 AM NEW
Current notions of mental health professionals about the “duty to protect” are generally linked to the Tarasoff case, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1974), which has been documented by various scholars in both the psychotherapeutic and legal fields. In 1969, a 25-year-old graduate student from India, Prosenjit Poddar, was seeing a clinical psychologist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, as an outpatient at the University of California, Berkeley Mental Health Services Clinic. Over several sessions, Poddar revealed to Moore that he had violent fantasies of harming (killing) a student from a neighboring college who he believed she had betrayed him and abandoned her love. The young woman was Tatiana (Tanya) Tarasoff, 19. Moore discussed various courses of action with two clinical colleagues. He believed that he should confront Poddar about a gun he had bought and try to take it from him. Poddar was becoming more agitated and “psychotic at times”. He reluctantly breached confidentiality and informed campus police, both verbally and in writing, that in his opinion, Poddar should be involuntarily committed for 72 hours because Poddar was a danger to someone else. Police questioned both Poddar and other acquaintances, including Tarasoff’s brother, who did not believe he was dangerous. However, police released Poddar without further action after concluding that he did not pose the danger Moore had indicated. Poddar did not return to the university clinic for further sessions with Moore. Two months later, Poddar stabbed Tarasoff to death.
In what is known as Tarasoff II (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1976), the California Supreme Court “modified its ruling and imposed a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim” (Slovenko, 1988, p.140). Therefore, Tarasoff II does not issue a directive to warn, but rather to use “reasonable care to protect”. It has been pointed out that most of the negligence cases brought against hospitals, prior to the Tarasoff judgment, were due to administrative or communication errors.
Reference:
Drodge, E. (1997). Confidentiality and the duty to protect: A balancing act for school personnel. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(3), 312. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/confidentiality-duty-protect-balancing-act-school/docview/215375469/se-2