Confidentiality: Tarasoff Case
Do therapists bear the duty to use reasonable care in order to warn a third party of foreseeable danger? The majority opinion in the Tarasoff case is more ethically sound.
The strongest argument against my opinion is that by imposing that a doctor has the duty to breach confidentiality in order to warn a third party of a potential threat can greatly impair treatment. The most important factor in ensuring that a patient receives successful treatment is by establishing a solid physician-patient relationship. This is a consequentialist view because it focuses on the future outcome, which in this case is effective treatment. As indicated on page nine of the reading, assuring confidentiality is vital for three main reasons: to prevent deterrence of treatment, to encourage thorough communication, and provide fruitful help. Talking with someone about personal issues is a very daunting and a vulnerable position for most people in the first place. People are also often anxious and very insecure about the negative stigma attached to seeking help for emotional and/or mental difficulties. With that being said, if potential patients doubt the level of trust they can find in therapists this can cause them to no longer seek assistance because they fear exposure. If a patient is confident that their privacy will not be compromised this can reduce a lot of the stress. Second, once a patient feels he or she is guaranteed privacy one will be more likely to reveal most if not all things to their therapist. This will help the doctor to make appropriate diagnosis and ensure the patient acquires the proper treatment. If a patient is hesitant to reveal certain crucial details could be left out and this could prevent proper diagnosis and treatment which could be very detrimental. The more a patient trusts their therapist, the more recall will occur and there will be less repression of memories. Lastly, trust must not only be established but