The normative and conceptual foundations of a clinical duty to protect

The continuing controversy surrounding the Tarasoff inspired duty to protect as developed by the courts and legislatures has not adequately weighed the jurisprudential foundations of such an obligation. The authors argue that the duty's misguided thrust of social control grounded in character a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Behavioral sciences & the law 1993, Vol.11 (2), p.165-180
Main Authors: Quattrocchi, Michael R., Schopp, Robert F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence
Criminal Law
Ethics, Professional
Freedom
Health technology assessment
Humans
Psychotherapy - legislation & jurisprudence
United States
Violence - legislation & jurisprudence
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The continuing controversy surrounding the Tarasoff inspired duty to protect as developed by the courts and legislatures has not adequately weighed the jurisprudential foundations of such an obligation. The authors argue that the duty's misguided thrust of social control grounded in character and status seriously violates broad principles of political morality underlying the law of social control. They conceptualize an alternative—a clinical duty to protect—that coheres with these underlying values and the limits of professional abilities. They contend that any extra‐clinical intervention on the part of the psychotherapist entails a role transformation requiring independent justification.
ISSN:0735-3936
1099-0798
DOI:10.1002/bsl.2370110206