Tarasoff vs Regents of U.C. is an important case re practitioner confidentiality. This is a brief letter from the treating psychologist published by "Dear Abby" to clarify an error in an earlier column.
Tarasoff vs Regents of U.C. is an important case re practitioner confidentiality. This is a brief letter from the treating psychologist published by "Dear Abby" to clarify an error in an earlier column.
Tarasoff vs Regents of U.C. is an important case re practitioner confidentiality. This is a brief letter from the treating psychologist published by "Dear Abby" to clarify an error in an earlier column.
Tarasoff vs Regents of U.C. is an important case re practitioner confidentiality. This is a brief letter from the treating psychologist published by "Dear Abby" to clarify an error in an earlier column.
Setting record straight on confidentiality:
Dear Abby: I have received
‘many phone calls since the appear-
ance of Carol A. Tauer’s letter in
your column. Her otherwise inter-
sting and informative eter con
‘cerning the ethical implications of
the Catholic Church's position on
the seal of the confessional con-
tained a of errors that I
hhope you will correct. =
It is well known in the Bay Area
pean omni tat war
tt logist (not psy-
Smears?
‘Cowell Memorial Hospital on the
University of Calfornia-Berkeley
‘campus forthe patient who mur
‘dered Tatiana Tarasoff.
‘Ms. Tauer, an ethics teacher in a
Catholic college, said in her leter,
“On appeal, the California
‘Supreme Court rejected the psy-
chiatrist’s argument supporting ab-
solute confidentiality, saying that a
psychiatrist had a duty to war or
protect an identifiable potential
But Abby, I never argued for
‘complete confidentiality. When the
patient told me of hs intention to
‘al Ms, Tarasof, 1 immediately in-
formed the local police (in this
cat, the Univer of Caliomia
Campus Police Departme
rot a legal eter of commitment
(countersigned by the chief psychi-
atrist of our department) with the
intent of hospitalizing my patient,
‘This was exactly the procedure di-
rected by law at that time (1968).
‘The campus police interviewed
soll ert my rad
point to my
ers: You di, infact, warn the police
on tet ocasons. You dd
not rely upon any claim of confiden-
tality to keep the threats seeret
‘The Supreme Court opinion
cited by Ms. Tauer does not make
‘lear that you
the matter
Tenueee
the patient committed and did not
configenta