A Psychologist’s Reveal: Duty to Warn, (Part 2)*

This limited series runs Fridays and Saturdays 5 p.m. PST to demystify the profession of psychology. The world is confusing enough with scamps and scoundrels peddling fake whatever that help from trained, experienced psychologists should be easy-peasy. Your comments and questions are encouraged. -SQ

In Part 1 of this series, I wrote about psychologists Code of Ethics and particularly Confidentiality, a cornerstone of our profession. The doctor-patient (client) privilege asserts that the adult patient holds the privilege of whether the psychologist can discussion therapy issues with third parties or not. The therapist role is fixed; zero discussion is allowed without explicit informed consent from the client. But, there are exceptions, as mandated or allowed by law, in which the client's consent is not required and the psychologist will communicate with third parties. One of these exceptions is for the protection of the client or others from harm.  

I'll give you the historical short-form of how this duty arose, but it's a fascinating read if you have the time. Treating professionals need to understand their state's specific laws around this issue as more recent cases have added additional professional responsibilities. Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California established the legal precedent for the duty to warn in 1976 when a psychologist (Ph.D.), under the supervision of a psychiatrist (M.D.) was convinced that his patient might try to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. The psychologist had the UC-Berkeley campus police detain Poddar (his patient) to begin civil commitment. The police did not detain Poddar, feeling that he was rational. The supervising psychiatrist also felt there was no basis to commit Poddar. Two months later, Poddar murdered Tarasoff. Her parents sued, asserting that the psychologist, psychiatrist, and university had a responsibility to do more, including warning Tatiana Tarasoff directly that she was in danger. The Court agreed with the parents, concluding that there was a duty to warn identifiable victims, although not necessarily a duty to restrain, or commit, a patient who might pose a threat to identifiable or non-identifiable victims. Our professional code is "do no harm" and protecting others is part of this code. -SQ 

*This information is based on California rules and laws.