CONFIDENTIALITY AND INFORMED CONSENT
In the case of Tarasoft v Board of Regents of the University of California (1976). On Oct 27, 1969 there was a young lady named Tatiana Tarasoft who was killed by a man named Prosenjit Poddar. Poddar was taken by Tarasoft but realized she did not want to date him. Tarasoft was involved with someone else but gave Poddar the impression she liked him from their intimate encounter. He was so upset because he felt he was being lead on by the victim. He began stalking the victim without her knowledge. She eventually left the country and returned back to the United States. The patient who killed Ms. Tarasoft told his psychologist he was going to kill her two months before he actually killed her. He confided in his psychologist and let him know he was going to kill Tarasoft. Before the Tarasoft case began psychologists had a duty to their patient not a third party. This made it easy for patients trust the information they were giving their psychologist. It helped the patient to not be careful about what they were telling the doctor. Once the Tarasoft case was opened up to the courts the Confidentiality between patient and psychologist was over depending on the conversation. If a patient like Poddar comes in with psychological issues a psychotherapist should always take action. The Tarasoft decision is a California decision that imposes a duty on a therapist to warn the appropriate people or person when he/she becomes aware their patient may present a risk of harm to a person or persons. The decision made by the psychologist was not a good one at all because the women were in danger. The psychologist alerted campus police because he took what his patient said serious but did not inform her or the family. The Psychologist suggested Poddar should be hospitalized due to his mental state of mind. The psychologist should have breached the patient confidentiality once he knew third...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document