Duty to Warn

When you have a client who begins to get upset and you feel that he or she may act out, what do you do? Learn more: bit.ly/1FNbzgD

[@goldenboy18hernandez39]

thank you for the video, just here to master the content I am a nursing student and my Mental Health teacher he is excellent talk about Tarasoff law and make me think about it

[@tomwright9904]

1:54 And herein lies the problem you place your safety above the individuals well being and society's because I would say your position increases the chance of violence by preventing people from talking to you honestly. It is noticeable that the case that created the duty to warn was arguably caused by warning the police. Someone reported direct violent plans, the therapist told the police, the police could not do anything and the client left therapy and later killed this person. You talk about plans. But let's be clear a planning not to do something and planning to do something are in many ways the same activity, and wouldn't one like to be involved in someone planning *not* to do something?

[@JosephLachh]

You seem like you understand the Tarasoff murder case, but advocate against the duty to warn. Yep, both the professor in the video, me, and all my colleagues understand the duty to warn and the consequences of breaching confidentiality. However, I'd breach confidentiality every time someone says something about hurting someone else (by warning that person and maybe even the police) because that's the right thing to do.

[@tomwright9904]

@@JosephLachh I guess it comes down to questions of duty, risk, agency and probability and incentives. You think its the right thing, I think it is truly disgusting abusive behaviour deserving of utter contempt. From my perspective you are causing real harm to a person who has invested their trust in you for being open and expressing an opinion that more than 70 percent of people admit to holding. The entire position is based on a deceit about how humans think and feels motivated entirely by compliance and self protections rather than helping your client or society.

[@cdorman11]

​@@tomwright9904 "feels motivated entirely by compliance and self protections rather than helping your client or society" Funny, I was gong to level those same charges at you. You argue that Dr. Fox should pay more attention to the professional guidelines and be more careful not to be sued. In other words, he should be more compliant and put more emphasis on protecting his career over preventing a murder, i.e., helping to protect society. My sister-in-law faced the same dilemma with her daughter, who was getting into some trouble with an older man. The mother didn't want to enact any consequences because then the daughter might clam up right when she needed help from her mother the most. So how does one choose which hill to die on? How does one weigh the probabilities? If there's a 1% chance of a smothering attempt, is violation of confidentiality worth it? One may decide that's too low to jeopardize both one's license and the patient's openness. Another way to assess it though is to ask how stupid the psychologist would look after a murder that he could have easily prevented. But there is a third way. What would the point be in warning the roommate? What would he do with this information? Move out? The patient could be moved out the next day to his own single (or to the infirmary until one could be opened up). The roommate wouldn't have to know the reason for the move or why his lock was being changed. Maybe there's a lock on the roommate's inner room. A move wouldn't be needed at all. I'd advise a room change anyway, to avoid having to tell the roommate. At mh last school, students from Italy were getting kicked out for drug violations. One Italian suggested to a Dean of Students that suicide could be a consequence of such a life-changing punishment. The dean said, "That never happens." The next school year, it happened. I've reported students to DYFS when they mention in class abuse by a parent. In both cases, the student said to me afterward, "Ha ha, I got you, Mr. D." But you can't let fear of looking pwned stop you from doing the same thing in the future. I don't know when each student was being truthful and when he was lying. If I wait for corroboration in terms of a second accusation of abuse, it may never come, and I missed my chance. For the U.S., WWII started at Pearl Harbor with the largest blip on the radar scope that the operator had ever seen. The officer on duty was new to the detail and said not to do anything, that it was probably American planes whose arrival was expected. Should the radar man risk court martial by disobeying a command in order to capture the remaining 50 minutes until the Japanese arrived to get the planes off the runway and the antiaircraft artillery manned? For the U.S., WWII ended with the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis. A distress signal was sent... and received. The radio operator reported it to an officer, who said to wait for a second, confirmatory message. The Indianapolis went down in 12 minutes, giving no time to send a second SOS. Instead of the officer's checking it out just to be safe, the crew of the Indianapolis spent five days in the water. Should the radio man have risked court martial by disobeying an order and attempting to instigate a search? The point is that, while the psychologist risks the patient clamming up when the real crime is about to be committed and the radar and radio man risk court martial, assuming that there will be the luxury of a second warning can have far more disastrous consequences. When a pretty girl asked me for directions in the subway, and I didn't get her info, my disappointed father told me the story of the man who believed God would rescue him if the flood got dangerous. The police show up to order evacuation. He tells them God will rescue him. The road is flooded over. His neighbor asks if he wants a ride in his Humvee. He thanks the neighbor but explains that he prayed and had a vision God would rescue him. The man is forced onto his roof. A boat comes by but he again refuses help. After he drowns he asks St. Peter why the vision wasn't fulfilled. St. Peter explained that God sent the police, his neighbor, and a boat. How many chances did he need?

[@tomwright9904]

1:59 You might like to bear in mind that you could be sued for unnecessarily breaching confidentiality and there are fairly strict guidelines about when you can and can't warn people.

[@cdorman11]

He could be sued by the parents of a dead child.

[@tomwright9904]

1:34 You want to know but then you want to be free to overreact and violate confidence. Don't you understand how these things are intrinsically contradictory.