Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:19:11.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tarasoff Duties after Newtown

Currents in Contemporary Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mark A. Rothstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

After recent tragedies involving mass murders on a college campus in Virginia, an Army base in Texas, a congressional constituent event at a shopping center in Arizona, and a movie theater in Colorado, one might have assumed the public had become numb to horrendous and senseless acts of killing. If so, one would have been wrong. The public was not prepared for the brutal and cold-blooded murder of 20 first-grade school children and six teachers and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012.

Following the all-too-familiar emotional stages of shock, grief, and anger, many members of the public and elected officials turned to the issue of how to prevent such tragedies in the future. Two main questions quickly became the focus of policy makers.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Spring 2014 , pp. 104 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Seung-Hui, Cho, a 23-year-old student at Virginia Tech with a long history of mental illness, killed 32 students and faculty and wounded 17 others on campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, on April 16, 2007. He also killed himself after the attack.Google Scholar
Major Hassan, Malik Nidal, a 39-year-old Army psychiatrist who was described as increasingly isolated and under pressure, killed 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood, Killeen, Texas, on November 5, 2009. He was convicted of murder by a military court in 2013.Google Scholar
Loughner, Lee Jared, a 22-year-old exhibiting symptoms of mental illness, killed six and wounded 13 (including then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) outside a Safeway supermarket in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011. He pled guilty to 19 counts of murder or attempted murder.Google Scholar
Holmes, Eagan James, a 24-year-old with a history of mental illness, killed 12 and wounded 70 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012. He is awaiting trial.Google Scholar
Lanza, Adam, a 20-year-old who had Aspergers syndrome, but no diagnosed mental illness, killed 20 children and six adults, not counting his mother and later himself, in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012.Google Scholar
See Buckner, Fillmore Firestone, Marvin, “‘Where the Public Peril Begins’: 25 Years After Tarasoff”, Journal of Legal Medicine 21, no. 2 (2000): 187–222.Google Scholar
It has been asserted that reporting Poddars threat to the campus police actually made matters worse because he stopped counseling. See Buckner and Firestone, id., at 194. It is unclear whether additional counseling would have prevented the attack on Tanya, and a jury could well have determined that more effective steps to protect Tanya, including warning her of Poddars threats, would have prevented her murder.Google Scholar
Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 108 Cal. Rptr. 878 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973).Google Scholar
Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 529 P.2d 553 (Cal. 1974).Google Scholar
See Buckner, & Firestone, , supra note 6, at 196.Google Scholar
Merton, V., “‘Dangerous Patient: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and Lawyers”, Emory Law Journal 31, no. 2 (1982): 263–343, at 295.Google ScholarPubMed
Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
Id., at 345.Google Scholar
Id., at 346.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 347.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Cantu, C. E. Jones, M. H., “Bitter Medicine: A Critical Look at the Mental Health Care Providers Duty to Warn in Texas”, St. Marys Law Journal 31, no. 2 (2000): 359–403, 377–378.Google Scholar
The term physician-patient relationship is normally used to characterize an individuals relationship with a medical doctor, and psychotherapists may be clinical psychologists, social workers, or individuals with other training. The nonphysician therapists commonly refer to the individuals they counsel as “clients”. For the sake of consistency, the term therapist-patient relationship is used in this article to apply to all psychotherapists and those they counsel.Google Scholar
See, generally, Lake, P. F., “Revisiting” Tarasoff, Albany Law Review 58, no. 1 (1994): 97–173.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Bardoni v. Kim, 390 N.W.2d 218 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986); McIntosh v. Milano, 403 A.2d 500 (N.J. 1979); Wofford v. Eastern State Hosp., 795 P.2d 516 (Okla. 1990); Emerich v. Phila. Ctr. For Human Dev., Inc., 720 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998); Peck v. Counseling Serv., Inc., 499 A.2d 422 (Vt. 1985); Petersen v. State, 671 P.2d 230 (Wash. 1983).Google Scholar
Cal. Civ. Code § 43.92.Google Scholar
See National Conference of State Legislatures, “Mental Health Professionals Duty to Warn”, available at <www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx> (last visited February 13, 2014).+(last+visited+February+13,+2014).>Google Scholar
The 29 states with mandatory reporting laws: Alabama, Arizona (duties vary for different professions), California, Colorado, Delaware (duties vary for different professions), Idaho, Illinois (duties vary for different professions), Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.Google Scholar
The 16 states and the District of Columbia with permissive reporting laws: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.Google Scholar
The four states with no duty to report: Maine, Nevada, North Carolina, and North Dakota.Google Scholar
The Georgia Code of Ethics of the State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, ch. 510–4–.02 § 4.05 allows discretionary disclosure of confidential information to protect the client, psychologist, or others from harm. Despite Georgias lack of statutory authority, it is important to note that Georgia case law has established that “where the course of treatment of a mental patient involves an exercise of ‘control’ over him by a physician who knows or should know that the patient is likely to cause bodily harm to others, an independent duty arises from that relationship and falls upon the physician to exercise that control with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient”. Bradley Ctr., Inc. v. Wessner, 287 S.E.2d 716, 721 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).Google Scholar
Arizona, Delaware, and Illinois.Google Scholar
For example, the Delaware law provides that mental health providers must warn against threats to clearly identified victims as well as clearly identified property. By contrast, Maryland law provides that mental health providers only must warn against threats against specific victims or groups, but may do so regardless of whether the patients intent to harm was expressed in speech, conduct, or writing.Google Scholar
The states granting immunity if the mental health professional complies with certain statutory requirements are Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington.Google Scholar
Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 551 P.2d 334, 344 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
American Medical Association, Code of Medical Ethics § 5.05 (2010).Google Scholar
American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct § 4.05(b)(3) (2010).Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association, Principles of Medical Ethics § 4, point 8 (2013).Google Scholar
Pub. L. No. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936 (codified in scattered sections of 18, 26, 29, 42 U.S.C. (2012).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 164 (2013).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 160.102 (2013).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.512 (2013).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.512(j) (2013).Google Scholar
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health, available at <http://www.hhs.ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/mhguidance.html> (last visited February 21, 2014).+(last+visited+February+21,+2014).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
20 U.S.C. § 1232g (2008).Google Scholar
34 C.F.R. Part 99 (2012).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Office of the Governor of Virginia, “Virginia Tech Review Panel: Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech”, available at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/vatechreport.pdf> (last visited February 18, 2014).+(last+visited+February+18,+2014).>Google Scholar
34 C.F.R. § 99.36(a) (2013).Google Scholar