Read the following case individually:

Case "Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California", resolved in 1976 by the Supreme
Court of California

A psychiatrist is complained about by the parents of Tatiana Tarasoff, a young woman killed
by a psychopathic patient of the same and whom he had entrusted his intentions to the
victim. Prosenjit Poddar, who was on psychiatric treatment by Dr. Lawrence Moore of
Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California, Berkeley, revealed her
intention to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. The psychiatrist warned campus police of his patient's
purpose and Poddar was arrested, although soon after he was released on the basis of
his "normal" appearance. The psychiatrist tried to hospitalize her patient, but did not
inform the young woman of the danger she was in. Subsequently, Prosenjit Poddar
killed Tatiana. The victim's parents snaught compensation based on the doctor's
negligence. The Supreme Court of California upheld the lawsuit on the view that the
psychiatrist had a special duty to take all necessary measures to avoid the danger of his
patient (he alerted the police but failed to exhaust all necessary measures available to
him to prevent the murder, therefore breaching due diligence as optional, the lex artis).
The imminence of the danger was so evident on the basis of a foresight judgment that
the Court gave foreminence to the public interest in the face of the privileges of
psychiatrist secrecy and patient intimacy.

In court, justice was divided into two contrasting positions. The majority opinion found the
psychiatrist guilty of professional negligence, claiming that the obligation to protect
persons from violent aggression exceeds the ethical rule of confidentiality, and in such
cases the individual involved should be warned directly or indirectly. Minority opinion,
on the other hand, defended the psychiatrist's behavior as a protector of the patient's
rights by not violating professional secrecy. But also, relying on consequential
arguments, the advantage for the public good of maintaining strict reserve of psychiatric
information is emphasized. Non-observance of the rule would frustrate psychiatric
treatment by losing confidence and moving away from it, thus increasing, far from
diminishing, the danger of violent aggression. Even if all the people who make threats
were interned (...) society would be the victim, as few have an effective risk of violence,
while the inoquate majority, once interned, could not count on the benefit of
psychotherapeutic treatment
 Activity: ethics
Instructions: Through reading, students will need to analyze the case below in order to
work on the issue of ethics

Theme: Confidentiality

Objectives:
1. Recognize confidentiality as an ethical standard for many aid professions
2. Identify dilermatic situations in which respect for confidentiality may be questioned

1. Summarize the case.

2. Analyze the main facts.
3. What ethical dimensions are involved in this case? Why is Tatiana Tarasoff's case
considered an ethical problem?
4. To complete the above idea, investigate the concept of confidentiality. What does that
mean? Why is it an ethical standard?

1. Identify other possible cases where the ethical standard of maintaining confidentiality may
not be upholded.
2. Analyze the issue of confidentiality in professional relations, individual rights and the
rights of groups or societies.