Related Experiment Videos
Court responses to Tarasoff statutes
Claudia Kachigian1, Alan R Felthous
1Department of Psychiatry, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, and Medical Director, Alton Mental Health Center, Alton, IL, USA. drkach22@charter.net
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
|November 2, 2004
Summary
Psychiatrists in Tarasoff statute states must use clinical judgment for protective disclosures. Court analyses show statutes offer limited guidance, emphasizing clinician discretion over legal mandates.
Area of Science:
- Forensic Psychiatry
- Legal Medicine
- Mental Health Law
Background:
- Tarasoff statutes mandate patient protection.
- Twenty-three states have enacted Tarasoff statutes since 1985.
- Court interpretations of these statutes vary significantly.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze court decisions involving Tarasoff statutes.
- To categorize judicial interpretations of clinician duties.
- To assess the practical impact of Tarasoff statutes on psychiatric practice.
Main Methods:
- Review of 76 court cases involving Tarasoff-type claims.
- Categorization of cases based on statutory reference and analysis.
- Analysis of judicial reasoning in duty-to-warn cases.
Main Results:
- Five categories of court analyses were identified.
- Statutes were not always referenced or analyzed.
- Courts sometimes found statutes created a duty, other times did not.
- Statutes were also discussed in the context of testimonial privilege.
Conclusions:
- Tarasoff statutes provide inconsistent guidance to clinicians.
- Clinicians must rely on professional judgment for protective disclosures.
- Statutory language needs refinement for clearer protective disclosure guidelines.