"Ms. T.," he said sympathetically, "have you read for today? Even though it is the first day back from spring break?"
I had read, but I think he would have let me off the hook if I hadn't. Still, though, I thought it better to do a case on a day that the professors were all a bit sympathetic to our shock. I nodded.
"Please tell me about Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California".
The case is interesting, and I briefly summarized. Posenjit Poddar was under the care of psychiatrists at a hospital in the University of California. Poddar indicated to one doctor that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff because she had spurned his advances. Hearing this, the doctor had Poddar confined to the hospital, but then, despite disagreement among psychiatrists as to whether any further action should be taken, Poddar was released. Shortly thereafter, he stabbed Tarasoff to death. Her grieving parents brought an action against the psychiatrists, claiming that Tarasoff's death proximately resulted from the doctors' failure to warn either Tarasoff or others.
It's a tough case. Tell the police or Tarasoff herself, and the doctor is breaching patient confidentiality and accusing a man of potential violence rather than an actual crime. Don't tell, and an innocent woman is murdered.
Prof. Torts asked me what the court decided. The California Supreme Court held that Tarasoff's death did proximately result from the doctors' failure to warn Tarasoff, holding further that the risk that an innocent person might be murdered outweighed the possibility that a patient might be falsely accused of potential violence or that there could be a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality.
"Do you think that lawyers should be held to the same standard as doctors in this case?"
"Yes," I answered truthfully, "but I hope I never have to make that call."
Prof. Torts looked compassionately at me for a moment. "Yes," he said, "I hope you never have to make that call either."
2 comments:
Isn't there a provision in the law that exempts professionals from patient/client confidentiality if someone's life is in danger? I tend to agree with the California Supreme Court regarding this case, I think the decision should have been clearcut for the psychiatrists.
I think, but am not sure, that at the time of the decision there was no protection for doctors in cases like this. I think the doctors could have been sued for slander and perhaps professionally censured for a breach of ethics if they had told and nothing had happened. I don't think it was very clear cut for them at the time.
Post a Comment