From Tarasoff to Hopper: The evolution of the therapist's duty to protect third parties

Ethical responsibilities to depressed research participants.

“…One is left to decide which of these prima facie valid principles, beneficence or autonomy, takes precedence. It appears that the APA’s ethical guidelines (APA, 1981, 1982), legal decisions citing the mental health professional’s positive duty to attempt to prevent clients from harming themselves or others (Berman & Cohen-Sandler, 1983; Cohen, 1979; Goodman, 1985), and substantial professional opinion (e.g., Burbach et al, 1986; Keith-Spiegel, 1976; Kitchener, 1984) emphasize the relative importance of beneficence, at least in situations of clear danger. As expressed by Kitchener (1984), “To argue, for example, that autonomy always trumps our obligation to help others or to prevent harm would lead to the conclusion that we must never intervene to save a person’s life against his/her will: a position that seems intuitively unethical” (p. 52).…”

Tarasaurus Rex: A Standard of Care That Could Not Adapt.

“…The protective conduct that discharges the duty, however, has never been clear, particularly with respect to the distinction between professional interventions, which require the exercise of expertise in the clinical professions, and nonprofessional actions, which require no expertise in the clinical professions. The Tarasoff decision, followed by limitations of the duty by some courts and statutes to circumstances involving a specific threat or an identifiable victim, emphasizes protection by the nonprofessional action of warning (Goodman, 1985; Schopp, 1991). Consistent with this emphasis, the continuing legal development of the standard of care emphasizes nonprofessional conduct including warnings and confinement (Carstensen, 1994; Egley, 1991; Felthous & Kachigan, 2001; Goodman, 1985; Schopp, 1991; Slovenko, 1988).…”

“…The Tarasoff decision, followed by limitations of the duty by some courts and statutes to circumstances involving a specific threat or an identifiable victim, emphasizes protection by the nonprofessional action of warning (Goodman, 1985; Schopp, 1991). Consistent with this emphasis, the continuing legal development of the standard of care emphasizes nonprofessional conduct including warnings and confinement (Carstensen, 1994; Egley, 1991; Felthous & Kachigan, 2001; Goodman, 1985; Schopp, 1991; Slovenko, 1988).…”