Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Professional Confidentiality
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Dick Adams
May 5, 2013, 2:31:19 PM5/5/13
to
(Purely hypothetical, based on a discussion of a mystery novel.)
If a psychologist knows that a patient is a serial killer, is she
permitted or required to report this?
If she knows (or believes) he is likely to continue killing (but
nothing definite) is she permitted or required to report that?
When she believes she knows who his next victim is likely to be, is
she then permitted or required to report that?
Seth
If a psychologist knows that a patient is a serial killer, is she
permitted or required to report this?
If she knows (or believes) he is likely to continue killing (but
nothing definite) is she permitted or required to report that?
When she believes she knows who his next victim is likely to be, is
she then permitted or required to report that?
Seth
Mike Jacobs
May 6, 2013, 10:16:46 AM5/6/13
to
Seth wrote:
> If a psychologist knows that a patient is a serial killer, is she
> permitted or required to report this?
>
> If she knows (or believes) he is likely to continue killing (but
> nothing definite) is she permitted or required to report that?
>
> When she believes she knows who his next victim is likely to be, is
> she then permitted or required to report that?
>
> Seth
I just Googled "therapist confidentiality law" and came up with lots
> If a psychologist knows that a patient is a serial killer, is she
> permitted or required to report this?
>
> If she knows (or believes) he is likely to continue killing (but
> nothing definite) is she permitted or required to report that?
>
> When she believes she knows who his next victim is likely to be, is
> she then permitted or required to report that?
>
> Seth
of hits, including this:
http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa040901a.htm
The details vary from state to state. A
practitioner in a given state ought to be familiar
with the law of that state, either from a
professional ethics course during their degree
studies, or continuing education courses on ethics
after entering practice.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685
Stuart Bronstein
May 6, 2013, 10:18:03 AM5/6/13
to
Seth asked:
> (Purely hypothetical, based on a discussion of a mystery novel.)
>
> If a psychologist knows that a patient is a serial killer, is
> she permitted or required to report this?
This issue is governed by state law, so exactly where to draw the
line. Speaking from the land of fruits and nuts (because California
is the farming capital of the country, of course) the rule here is
that, based solely on the information given in the question, the
answer is no. Just because someone killed a number of people in the
past is no reason to breach confidentiality.
> If she knows (or believes) he is likely to continue killing (but
> nothing definite) is she permitted or required to report that?
>
> When she believes she knows who his next victim is likely to be,
> is she then permitted or required to report that?
The rule here was set in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the
University of California, http://snipurl.com/26zipca
There the court said, among other things,
"When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his
profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious
danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use
reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger."
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> (Purely hypothetical, based on a discussion of a mystery novel.)
>
> If a psychologist knows that a patient is a serial killer, is
> she permitted or required to report this?
line. Speaking from the land of fruits and nuts (because California
is the farming capital of the country, of course) the rule here is
that, based solely on the information given in the question, the
answer is no. Just because someone killed a number of people in the
past is no reason to breach confidentiality.
> If she knows (or believes) he is likely to continue killing (but
> nothing definite) is she permitted or required to report that?
>
> When she believes she knows who his next victim is likely to be,
> is she then permitted or required to report that?
University of California, http://snipurl.com/26zipca
There the court said, among other things,
"When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his
profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious
danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use
reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger."
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Mike Jacobs
Jun 25, 2013, 8:58:36 AM6/25/13
to
On Monday, May 6, 2013 9:18:03 AM UTC-5, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> Seth asked:
> > When she believes she knows who his next victim is likely to be,
> > is she then permitted or required to report that?
>
> The rule here was set in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the
> University of California, http://snipurl.com/26zipca
>
> There the court said, among other things,
>
> "When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his
> profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious
> danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use
> reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger."
>
> --
>
> Stu
> http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
The rule Stu correctly cites has to do with the
therapist's civil liability in tort to a future
victim of her patient if the therapist has reason
to believe the person is dangerous and fails to use
reasonable care to protect against that danger.
That is generally a matter of appellate courts'
binding interpretation, in these specific
circumstances, of what the generic "reasonable
person" standard for negligence liability requires
any therapist in that situation to do, and thus the
result may vary from state to state, although the
reasoning of the Tarasoff case probably has been
adopted by the courts of many states other than
California too.
More directly, the legislatures many states
(Maryland among them) have passed statutes
specifically setting forth circumstances under
which a therapist, physician, teacher, etc. MUST
report either a risk of future violence _or_
evidence of past violent behavior, by _or_ against
the person in their charge, and such requirements
are in addition to the "reasonable person" duty to
avoid a common law negligent failure to report,
unless a statute _forbidding_ disclosure under
certain circumstances is construed as shielding the
potential reporter against tort liability for
failure to report.
Here's a link to a law review article on the
general subject of a therapist's duty to report
past criminal acts by a patient:
http://www.jaapl.org/content/14/3/221.full.pdf
BTW, Mr. Moderator, what's going on with the group?
No activity for a whole month? Where is everybody?
> Seth asked:
> > When she believes she knows who his next victim is likely to be,
> > is she then permitted or required to report that?
>
> The rule here was set in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the
> University of California, http://snipurl.com/26zipca
>
> There the court said, among other things,
>
> "When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his
> profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious
> danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use
> reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger."
>
> --
>
> Stu
> http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
therapist's civil liability in tort to a future
victim of her patient if the therapist has reason
to believe the person is dangerous and fails to use
reasonable care to protect against that danger.
That is generally a matter of appellate courts'
binding interpretation, in these specific
circumstances, of what the generic "reasonable
person" standard for negligence liability requires
any therapist in that situation to do, and thus the
result may vary from state to state, although the
reasoning of the Tarasoff case probably has been
adopted by the courts of many states other than
California too.
More directly, the legislatures many states
(Maryland among them) have passed statutes
specifically setting forth circumstances under
which a therapist, physician, teacher, etc. MUST
report either a risk of future violence _or_
evidence of past violent behavior, by _or_ against
the person in their charge, and such requirements
are in addition to the "reasonable person" duty to
avoid a common law negligent failure to report,
unless a statute _forbidding_ disclosure under
certain circumstances is construed as shielding the
potential reporter against tort liability for
failure to report.
Here's a link to a law review article on the
general subject of a therapist's duty to report
past criminal acts by a patient:
http://www.jaapl.org/content/14/3/221.full.pdf
BTW, Mr. Moderator, what's going on with the group?
No activity for a whole month? Where is everybody?
Stuart A. Bronstein
Jun 25, 2013, 1:39:07 PM6/25/13
to
Mike Jacobs <mjaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, Mr. Moderator, what's going on with the group?
> No activity for a whole month? Where is everybody?
God had it rain down for 40 hours and 40 minutes on the newsgroup,
> BTW, Mr. Moderator, what's going on with the group?
> No activity for a whole month? Where is everybody?
and all the posts from misc.legal.moderated were washed away in the
flood. The moderator, on his arc floating on the sea, had no
internate connection.
But the flood waters are receding. Until the moderator is again on
dry land, the forebear of the moderator has returned to moderate
posts in his temporary absence.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
0 new messages