Tarasoff and the clinician: problems in fulfilling the duty to protect

Abstract

The obligation to protect potential victims of one's patients, as first described in the California Tarasoff case, is being endorsed by an increasing number of jurisdictions. Although problematic in many respects, it has become a factor that must be dealt with in routine clinical interactions. The author presents a three-part model of the Tarasoff obligation--identifying the requirements of assessment, selection of a course of action, and implementation--and illustrates with case examples the mistakes that clinicians commonly make at each of these stages. Guidelines are suggested for a reasonable approach to dealing with the Tarasoff doctrine.