What began as a mental health issue has been expanded to other fields of social work practice.ĭuty to Warn and Duty to Protect in Mental Health There are also serious implications for malpractice and unethical behavior. This may entail a warning, police notification, or other necessary steps.ĭuty to warn and duty to protect have implications for social work practitioners in the fields of mental health, HIV/AIDS, domestic violence, and medical social work. Duty to protect implies a therapist determining that his or her patient presents a serious danger of violence to another and an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against danger (Harvard Mental Health Letter, 2008, January). lacked Tarasoff-like provisions at the time of Herbert’s report in 2002.ĭuty to warn means that the social worker must verbally tell the intended victim that there is a foreseeable danger of violence. Tarasoff is an important decision with legal implications, and only 13 states in the U.S. The environment has changed for social work and confidentiality, as social workers now divulge confidential information to third-party payers. Since the second Tarasoff decision in 1976, there has been argument and debate as to the applicability of this judgment to the client-social worker relationship. There are many concerns about the implications of the Tarasoff case, especially around the confidentiality of the client-social worker relationship and violent clients avoiding treatment. The first Tarasoff case imposed a duty to warn the victim, whereas the second Tarasoff case implies a duty to protect (Kopels & Kagle, 1993). The Tarasoff case imposed a liability on all mental health professionals to protect a victim from violent acts. Thus, it may call for him to warn the intended victim or others likely to appraise the victims of that danger, to notify the police or take whatever steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances (p. The discharge of the duty may require the therapist to take one or more various steps, depending on the nature of the case. When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. Walcott, Cerundolo, and Beck (2001) cite the second Tarasoff case, establishing a duty to protect. Tarasoff’s family sued the campus police and the university health service for negligence.
After Tarasoff returned from a summer in Brazil, Poddar murdered Tatiana with a knife.
The police only warned Poddar to stay away from Tarasoff. Although the psychotherapist did not directly warn Tarasoff or the family, the psychologist notified the police, who interviewed Poddar for commitment. Poddar stated to the university health science psychologist that he intended to kill an unnamed woman, who was identified as Tatiana Tarasoff. Prosenjit Poddar and Tatiana Tarasoff were students at UC Berkeley. Walcott, Cerundolo, and Beck (2001) describe the facts of the Tarasoff case. Duty to warn and duty to protect have ethical implications for all social workers. This area needs to be explored and understood by social work practitioners, educators, and social work students. Being able to protect potential victims from harm and protecting clients from self-harm have become ethical obligations in social work practice. Since the Tarasoff case in 1974, duty to warn and duty to protect have become important as concepts in the field of social work and other helping disciplines.
0 kommentar(er)
