JAAPL
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34:3:338-348 (2006)
Copyright © 2006 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Felthous, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Felthous, A. R.

REGULAR ARTICLE

Warning a Potential Victim of a Person's Dangerousness: Clinician's Duty or Victim's Right?

Alan R. Felthous, MD

Dr. Felthous is Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine; Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law; and Medical Director, Chester Mental Health Center. Address correspondence to: Alan R. Felthous, MD, Chester Mental Health Center, P.O. Box 31, 1315 Lehman Drive, Chester, IL 62233-0031. E-mail: alan.felthous{at}illinois.gov

The legal duty of a psychiatrist or psychotherapist to warn an identifiable victim of a patient's serious threat of harm has been well recognized in U.S. jurisprudence and clinical practice since the Tarasoff decision of the Supreme Court of California in 1976. Warning practices vary over a spectrum ranging from those that are essentially legally required duties of clinicians to those based on rights of actual or potential victims to be warned of a specific event. These practices can be categorized as follows: (1) warning of the risk of violence; (2) warning of the threat of violence; (3) requested warning; and (4) criminal victims' warning mandated by statute. As legal requirements and clinical standards for Tarasoff-type warnings continue to evolve, it behooves mental health professionals to recognize these four different types of warnings. Although not all are equally supported in law, all four practices can appear to carry some measure of legal obligation.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
R. Weinstock, G. Vari, G. B. Leong, and J. A. Silva
Back to the Past in California: A Temporary Retreat to a Tarasoff Duty to Warn
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2006; 34(4): 523 - 528.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.