Since the Tarasoff case, duty to warn and duty to protect has become an important role for psychologists and social workers. A psychologist has an ethical obligation provide clients with confidentiality. They are also required to know and understand when to break confidentiality if during their services, a patient claims harm to himself/ herself, or others. The case Tarasoff v. Regents was about Tatiana Tarasoff whom was killed by Prosenjit Poddar who has displayed a verbal desire to kill her to a psychologist from University of California. Podder was receiving therapy from Dr. Lawrence Moore around and he has mentioned his desire to kill her to Dr. Moore. Eventually, Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. This incident led to the case that focused on duty to warn and protect which has changed the field in psychology and its legal and ethical obligations when there is a chance of harm or danger to another human being. The Tarasoff case has a major impact on psychology and the ethical guidelines that every psychologist must follow. Ethical and legal standards protect the …show more content…
psychologist and the client during therapy sessions. Leading up to Tarasoff v. Regents case, Tatiana Tarasoff and Prosenjit Poddar were students at a University of California, Berkeley. In 1969 they briefly kissed, but Tatiana did not want to have an intimate relationship with Poddar. She wanted to date other men. Poddar developed feelings for Tarasoff that were not returned and he became obsessed with her. His obsession turned into stalking Tatiana and he would continued trying to figure out why she didn’t love him, or how he could make her love him. He was very depressed and it showed in his appearance and academics. In the summer of 1969, while Tatiana was on vacation, Poddar was asked by a friend to see mental health professional, and that’s when Poddar sought out Dr. Lawrence Moore from University of California, Berkley’s Cowell Memorial Hospital. When speaking with a health science psychologist at his university, Poddar expressed his affection towards Tatiana that was dangerous. He developed an unhealthy attachment towards Tatiana and expressed to the psychologist that he is going to murder a woman whom he did not name but was described to be Tarasoff. The psychologist, Dr. Moore reasoned that Poddar was dangerous because he mentioned buying a gun. He also believed that Poddar has schizophrenic disorder and must seek help. Dr. Moore reported Poddar’s dangerous desires to the campus police who investigated him further. After the police interviewed Poddar, they claimed that he is not harmful to Tarasoff stating he was in a rational state of mind. They told him that he would have to stay away from Tarasoff and then released him. The Tarasoff family was never warned about this issue. In September 1969, Poddar made a plan to kill Tatiana, and when she returned, Podder brutally stabbed her to death. Tarasoff’s family sued the campus police and science health services for not warning Tatiana or her family and for neglecting her protection against Poddar. The family said that the campus police and mental health services failed in ensuring protection by not detaining Poddar and failing to notifying Tatiana Tarasoff that this man had intentions of killing her. When the court heard the case, they originally dismissed it because there was no legitimate case. The family appealed the courts decision. In their argument, they claimed that the school failed to warn and protect Tatiana of danger from Podder. They claimed that the defendants had the duty to warn and protect Tatiana. Someone should have been notified of the possible danger that Tatiana was under. Even though Tatiana was not a patient of Dr. Moore’s, he should be held liable for her safety once it was revealed she was in danger. The therapist could have warned Tatiana of the potential threat after notifying the campus police. The police were not successful in confining Poddar, but the family argued that Tatiana should have been warned even if the police did not confine Poddar because he was still considered dangerous. The defendant argued that duty to warn and/or protect third persons is not probable because therapists cannot accurately predict whether or not their patient will resort to violence. There is no doubt that prediction of violent outburst is difficult and it will not always be possible to predict whether a patients will resort to violent and/or dangerous outburst. However, a therapist is not required to predict whether their client is going to commit an offense. In this case, Poddar has mentioned that he is going to kill Tatiana Tarasoff, and the therapist neglected to warn Tatiana. In this case, it shows that the therapist was able to predict and determine that their client poses danger to another human being. He had intent and he had a plan by purchasing a gun. The Defendant also argued that therapists should only be held liable if they knew the identity of the person. The plaintiff’s argued that although it’s unreasonable to conduct an independent interrogation with clients to find the identity of the potential victim, it can be determined based on the sessions with the client. Each case is different and should be evaluated on different grounds. However, the dangers of Tatiana Tarasoff could have been avoided if Tatiana or her family were notified of the danger that Podder posed on her. Many arguments against the case claimed that therapists are held ethically and legally liable to protect a client’s confidentiality. When confidentiality is breached the relationship with the client is broken. The American Psychological Association (APA) argued that confidentiality cannot be broken under no circumstances. (Jacob, et al. 2011) Under APA’s code of ethics it also states that psychologist will not reveal any confidential information to other parties unless they have the consent from their client. The killing took place in October, 1969. The court’s ruling took place in 1974 and followed with a second ruling in 1976. This case has changed the meaning of confidentiality in health science and the way psychologists operate today. The first Tarasoff ruling took place in 1974 ruled in favor of the Tarasoff family. It stated that confidentiality can be breached in patient-psychotherapist relationship when there is potential danger to others. The psychologist had an obligation to warn Tarasoff. A psychologist is liable to warn a person that is placed in danger even if it means breaching confidentiality and ruining patient-psychotherapist relationship. The second ruling took place in 1976, stating that a therapist has a “duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim from harm. (Tarasoff v. Regents of California, 1976) Every situation will be different and a psychologist should be knowledgeable in the code of ethics and their responsibilities when it comes to their clients, confidentiality and breaching of confidentiality in order to duty to warn and protect potential victims. After both rulings, the APA revised their code of ethics to make it clear and understandable for all parties. The Code of Ethics now states “psychologists will reveal confidential information only with consent of their client or their legal representative, “except in those unusual circumstances where not to do so would result in clear danger to the person or others”. (Jacob et. al) Any social work professional who fails to warn any third party of potential threat will be held liable and trialed in court. As a professional, one must understand the potential dangers and sound the alarm to ensure others warned and protected from the dangers. The Tarasoff case relates to our course in Ethics in School Psychology.
As future school psychologists, it is important to understand the legal and ethical liabilities when dealing with clients. In this case, understanding and applying confidentiality, duty to warn and duty to protect shows the importance of the career field and what is required. Understanding how important confidentiality is in order to maintain a relationship with a client if very important. It is also very important to understand when it is necessary to breach confidentiality without being held legally and ethically responsible. When it comes to safety of others, a psychologist is legally and ethically liable to report the threat and warn anyone that is possibly in danger. This case shows how important it is to warn those in danger and the consequences when duty to warn and protect is neglected as it was in the Tatiana Tarasoff
case. It is important for a psychologist to understand and abide by the ethical standards. In order to avoid this problem, engaging in studies about the Tarasoff cases in graduate programs can build an understanding in duty to warn and the duty to protect especially when dealing with potentially dangerous clients. If during client-psychotherapist sessions it is ever revealed that a client poses harm to another human being, knowing what to do in that situation is very important. As school psychologists we will be working with children and adolescents. It is very important to know how to handle any situation that can possibly occur before it actually occurs. For example, while talking to a student, he reveals that he has intentions on killing someone, as a professional one must know how to handle that situation. Understanding the relationship with law enforcement, reporting potential dangers and protecting victims from abuse is pertinent in this field. The consequences can become extreme when a therapist failed to warn the intended victim.
FACTS: Respondent, Davis, a licensed LPN for over ten years who also lives with hearing loss applied for admissions to Southeastern Community College. The Petitioner, requested Davis see an audiologist before accepting her to the RN program. The audiologist concluded that Davis required lip-read in order to fully understand audible communication. The school subsequently denied Davis entry, assuming her hearing loss would affect her ability to effective care for patients safely.
In 1974, Brooker T. Hillery Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile, four Californian prison inmates, and Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs, three journalists, filed a lawsuit against Raymond K. Procunier, the Director of the California Department of Corrections. The suit was filed in regards to the constitutionality of the California Department of Corrections Manual Regulation 415.071. The manual regulated that the press and media could not specify particular inmates to be interviewed. However, the regulation did allow random inmates to be interviewed by the media. This regulation was passed following a brutal prison incident that officers believed was the result of allowing specified prisoner and press interviews. The
Established in 1968, the medical school at the University of California implemented a special admissions program to increase the representation of minorities in each entering class. There was one underlying problem with their special admissions program that was not addressed until 1973 when Allan Bakke submitted his application to the University of California.
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
When I first received this topic and did preliminary research, it seemed more of a race issue than a juvenile issue, since it happened during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. With further research, I found that it influenced how public colleges and the juvenile justice system handle disciplinary matters. This case was a part of many cases that granted juveniles the right of due process. According to our textbook, due process is a basic constitutional law (found in the 14th amendment) focused on the belief that the individual has primacy and that governmental power should be limited to protect the individual. Due process is supposed to safeguard the individual from unfair state procedures in legal or administrative trails. Because of the case in question, due process rights have been extended to juvenile trials. Another case during this time where due process was in question was the Goldberg v. The Regents of California.
"Pickering v. Board of Education - 391 U.S. 563 (1968)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
The court case Cleveland Board of Education V. LaFleur challenged the maternity policy regarding teachers having to go on unpaid leave involuntarily for 4-5 months due to their pregnancy. Jo Carol LaFleur and Ana Elizabeth Nelson whom were both teachers working under the Cleveland Board of Education when these issues occurred that lead to their decision of filing a suit against the board. They mainly hoped to be able to still continue their teaching well after the 5 month mark that the policy required them to leave. Failure to comply with these rules would have lead to their dismissal of their position or re-employment is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland Board of Education policy violated and went against the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This case was very significant in which it preserved the rights of teachers, especially women.
...rt of the medical profession, the therapists are expected to maintain the confidentiality of their clients. A psychologist must be able to acquire a client’s trust in order to keep quality confidentiality amongst the two parties. Only on seriously occasions should the patient’s records be shared, under certain other conditions the psychotherapy records of a minor can be reviewed by others without prior written consent. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), psychologists can usually give way the patient records to parents or legal guardians. Some of the ethical rules that apply to the practice of child and adolescent psychiatry are clear and generally agreed upon For example, rules against sexual contact or harsh or abusive treatment are encoded as boundary violations. A psychotherapist must be able to respect the boundaries of the client.
Children, young people and adults need to know confidentiality will be honoured unless their, or other's safety and well-being is threatened, a crime has or is likely to be committed, and a professional's knowledge of and access to the child, young person or adult's information will not be abused, in the same way that it is important for professional's to understand how important shared information is, where and how it's stored, transported and disclosed to other appropriate professionals.
The West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette Case in March 11, 1943 created much controversy throughout the United States. This case questioned whether a flag salute law for school children violated the First, the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In 1941 the West Virginia State Board of Education made it a mandatory action for all students to salute the American flag at the beginning of each school day and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. If students did not cooperate it would lead to harsh punishment (findlaw).
Having a positive approach helps psychologists clarify what they value, contemplate how they must behave, and decide what institutes suitable professional demeanor. The significance of positive ethics supports psychologists and allows them to reach their utmost ethical principles instead of violating the rules. The American Psychological Association are the top procedures to monitor to help stay within the ethical guidelines which has recently had revisions in the year two thousand two. There are a number of ethical codes to consider as a forensic psychologist cannot have the unawareness of particular psychological information, absence of specific preparation in forensic, presumptuous the lawyer will offer the expert with the essential legal ethical and professional evidence, assuming diverse jurisdictions are comparable in laws, how the laws are applied and failure to recognize the sole matters related with privacy and privileged communications for the work in the forensic
Ethics in the counselling and psychotherapy protects the client and the therapist involved in the therapeutic relationship and the therapeutic process as a whole; with the concepts that act as a guide for the therapists in provision of good practice and care for the client. The framework is built on values of counselling and psychotherapy; principles of trustworthiness, autonomy, fidelity, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence and self-respect, and provides standards of good practice and care for the practitioner (BACP, 2010). Ethical framework contributes to the development of the therapeutic relationship and process by assisting therapist’s decisions, and guides their behaviour and proceedings within their legal rights and duties. The ethical frame is structured on the boundaries of the therapeutic relationship and the therapists should be aware of their categories and be responsible for their forms. Monitoring and being aware of what goes on in and out of the room physically, emotionally and psychologically is primarily the duty of the therapist.
Mumford would be called to a meeting after the board of directors and I had met initially to discuss the unethical practice that he been performing. Although it appeared to all that the patients that he counselled or diagnosed became healthier in their actions but the facts remain that he did not follow any ethical standards for psychologists. During the board meeting, we would discuss the competence and responsibility of the professional ethics guideline on Mumford. “It is hoped that these guidelines will be of assistance when human service professionals and educators are challenged by difficult ethical dilemmas” (Woodside and McClam, 2011, p. 276). After the board members reached a mutual agreement, the meeting with Mumford would begin. In the meeting with Mumford, the board of directors would discuss his unethical act of practicing psychology without a license. According to our textbook, “psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study or professional experience” (Woodside, 2011, p. 276). Although Mumford attended college, he did not have enough credentials to hold a position as a psychologist. Concluding the meeting with Mumford and the board of directors, with lack of training and no license to
Koocher, G.P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2008). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.