Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:03:30.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Law & Psychiatry: When Must the Doctor Warn others of the Potential Dangerousness of His Patient's Condition?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

George J. Annas*
Affiliation:
Center for Law & Health Sciences, Boston University School of Law

Extract

In late December 1974, the Cailfornia Supreme Court considerably broadened a physician's duty to disclose Information gained in the course of treatment by enunclating the following rule: “When a doctor or a psychotherapist, in the exercise of his professional skill and knowledge, determines, or should determine, that a warning is essential to avert danger arising from the medical or psychological condifion of his patient. he incurs a legal obligation to give that warning.” (emphasis mine)

Prior to this case most lawyers would probably have assumed that such a “legal obligation” would have only been imposed by statute. such as contagious disease, child abuse and gunshot wound reporting statutes, and that giving of such warnings in the absence of a specific statute mandating reporting or warning was optional with the physician. While this case involved a psychologist, and is most relevant to psychlatric care, the broad language used by the court makes it clear that, in California at least. Its conclusions apply to all types of physicians. Because of its broad implications. It is worth taking a careful look at the facts which prompted the court to enunciate this expansive rule.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1975

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

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 118 Cal. Rptr. 129, 529 P. 2d 553 (1974).Google Scholar
People v. Poddar, 111 Cal. Rptr. 910, 518 P. 2d 342 (1974)Google Scholar
Hoffman v. Blackmon, 241 So. 2d 752 (Fla. App. 1970).Google Scholar
Wojcik v. Aluminum Co. of America, 183 N.Y.S. 2d 351, 357358 (1959).Google Scholar
Jones v. Stanko, 118 Ohio St. 147, 160 NE 456 (1928).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis v. Rodman, 147 Ark 385, 227 S.W. 612 (1921).Google Scholar
Skillings v. Allen, 143 Minn. 323, 173 N.W, 663 (1919).Google Scholar
Merchants National Bank & Trust v. U.S., 272 F. Supp. 409 (D.N.D. 1967)Google Scholar
Annas, , Confidentiality: What Should the Doctor Tell the Inquiring Employer? Orthopaedic Rev., 47-48, Oct. 1974.Google Scholar
Lambert, , Tarasoff Comment., Newsletter, Assoc. Trial Lawyers of America, Feb., 1975 at 51.Google Scholar