Tarasoff Case and the Duty to Warn

Tarasoff Case and the Duty to Warn
Student’s Name
University
Course Name and Number
Professor’s Name
Assignment Due Date
Tarasoff Case and the Duty to Warn
The Tarasoff case is one of the most controversial issues in the United States that has attracted the attention of policymakers and healthcare professionals. This issue has sparked public debate regarding patients' right to confidentiality, protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. HIPPA ensures that healthcare professionals maintain the secrecy of their patients (Adi & Mathbout, 2018). Tarasoff's case, according to healthcare professionals, would mean a breach of patient confidentiality. This matter was settled by the Supreme Court of California, ruling that health practitioners have the duty to warn the victims against impending danger.
The Case
Tarasoff case is a 1974 Supreme Court case that aimed to determine whether healthcare professionals have the duty to warn third parties of the impending danger following the murder of a university student in California. It is argued that the student’s death occurred due to the ignorance of the psychiatrists after failing to inform the victim of the foreseeable danger. However, the psychiatrists maintained that a duty to warn could compromise patients' confidentiality and weakens a therapeutic relationship in a healthcare facility.
Prosenjit Poddar and Tatiana Tarasoff were both students at the University of California, Berkley (Walcott et al., 2001). Poddar met Tarasoff at the dancing class and developed feeling for her. The two dated for a while until Tarasoff revealed to Poddar that she was involved with other men. Poddar was heartbroken and began to stalk her girlfriend. He became depressed and sought mental treatment from Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist at the Campus mental facility (Walcott et al., 2001). During his therapy session, Poddar revealed to Moore his plans to kill Tarasoff. Moore wrote to the University police saying that his patient had acute paranoid schizophrenia, recommending that Poddar be placed under strict observation because he posed a danger to other students (Walcott et al., 2001). Police detained him shortly but released him on the grounds that he appeared rational. Moore’s supervisor ordered him not to pursue any further detention of the patient. Neither Tarasoff nor her family received any warning from the psychologist or the University.
After Poddar had been released, he embarked on his initial plan to kill Tarasoff. On October 1969, he executed this plan by stabbing her to death (Weinstock et al., 2006). Tarasoff’s parents sued Moore and the University of California for negligence, claiming that the institution ought to have warned them or their daughter against the foreseeable threat (Walcott et al., 2001). On the other hand, the institution claimed that they have no legal obligation to any third party but only to the patient. The trial court ruled in favor of the University, but the case was appealed. In 1974, the Supreme Court overturned the trial court’s decision, establishing that mental health professionals have a duty to warn foreseeable victims of the danger upon determining that a patient poses a d...