Book contents
- From Courtroom to Clinic
- From Courtroom to Clinic
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Raising American Standards in the Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness
- 3 The Limits of Hospitalization after Commitment
- 4 Who Speaks for the Children?
- 5 The Right to Refuse Treatment
- 6 The Least Restrictive Alternative
- 7 Informed Consent
- 8 The Right to Die and End-of-Life Decision-Making
- 9 Prohibiting Psychiatrist–Patient Sex
- 10 Psychotherapist–Patient Privilege
- 11 Protecting Others from Dangerous Patients
- 12 The Insanity Defense
- 13 Conclusion
- Index
- References
11 - Protecting Others from Dangerous Patients
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2019
Edited by
Book contents
- From Courtroom to Clinic
- From Courtroom to Clinic
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Raising American Standards in the Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness
- 3 The Limits of Hospitalization after Commitment
- 4 Who Speaks for the Children?
- 5 The Right to Refuse Treatment
- 6 The Least Restrictive Alternative
- 7 Informed Consent
- 8 The Right to Die and End-of-Life Decision-Making
- 9 Prohibiting Psychiatrist–Patient Sex
- 10 Psychotherapist–Patient Privilege
- 11 Protecting Others from Dangerous Patients
- 12 The Insanity Defense
- 13 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- From Courtroom to ClinicLegal Cases that Changed Mental Health Treatment, pp. 129 - 138Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
1.Buckner, F, Firestone, M: Where the peril begins: 25 years after Tarasoff. J Legal Med. 21(2): 187–222, 2000Google Scholar
4.Merton, V: Confidentiality and the ‘dangerous’ patient: Implications of Tarasoff for psychiatrists and lawyers. Emory L J. 31: 263 (1982)Google Scholar
6.Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976)Google Scholar
11.Appelbaum, P, Zonana, H, Bonnie, R, Roth, L: Statutory approaches to limiting psychiatrists’ liability for their patients’ violent acts. Am J Psychiatry. 146(7): 821–8, 1989Google Scholar
12.Rosenhan, D, Teitelbaum, TW, Teitelbaum, KW, et al.: Warning third parties: The ripple effects of Tarasoff. 24 PAC L J. 1165 (1993)Google Scholar
13.Binder, R, McNeil, D: Application of the Tarasoff ruling and its effect on the victim and the therapeutic relationship. Psychiatr Serv. 47(11): 1212–5 (1996)Google ScholarPubMed
14.Huber, MG, Balon, R, Labbate, LA, et al.: A survey of police officers’ experience with Tarasoff warnings in two states. Psychiatr Serv. 51: 807–9, 2000CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Soulier, MF, Maislen, A, Beck, JC: Status of the psychiatric duty to protect, circa 2006. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 38: 457–73, 2010Google ScholarPubMed
16.Herbert, PB, Young, KA: Tarasoff at twenty-five. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 30: 275–81, 2002Google Scholar
17.Kachigian, C, Felthous, AR: Court responses to ‘Tarasoff’ statutes. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 32: 263–73, 2004Google Scholar
18.Felthous, AR, Kachigian, C: The duty to protect. In Rosner, R, Scott, CL (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry (3rd ed.), p. 813. New York: CRC Press, 2017.Google Scholar