Term
| What is Tarasoff regarding? |
|
Definition
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
* The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual
* but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual. |
|
|
Term
| When was the original Tarasoff decision made? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| When was Tarasoff reheard by the Supreme Court? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| How may the professional discharge the duty? |
|
Definition
Notify Police
Warn intended victim
Take other reasobnable steps to p[rotect threatened individual |
|
|
Term
| How did the Supreme Court restate the original position? |
|
Definition
| When a therapist determines that there is a serious danger of violence to another person, that the therapist has an obligation to protect identifiable victim (intended) reasonable care. |
|
|
Term
| What are the warning signs? |
|
Definition
| Imminent danger of harming himself or others |
|
|
Term
| DISCHARGE OF DUTY (California State) Must take one or more of the following steps: |
|
Definition
1. Call intended victim
2. Noyify the police
3. Take steps that are reasonably necessary under the circumstances
* Careful to get legal council before going down the road
* Notify Supervisor
* Document conversation |
|
|
Term
| FOUR THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN - DUTY TO PROTECT |
|
Definition
1. Client and/or client family member
2. has communicated to the clinician
3. a serious threat of violence
4. against a reasonably identifiable victim |
|
|
Term
| What do you do when you need to protect? |
|
Definition
CYA (consult collegeues, supervisor, legal counsel)
Conduct an assessment for violence (or find someone who can if you are not trained in threat assessment)
Document, document, document |
|
|
Term
| Eight violence assesments considerations? |
|
Definition
1. Past history of violence. But consider if using or not using
2. mpulsivity (0-60 be very careful)
3. Ability to resist violent impulses (flight or fight)
4. Reaction to violence/desensitization
5. Motivation to maintain self-control
6. Major risk factor for violence is alcohol and/or drugs
7. If authorization for release of information: talk with family member (how do they handle conflict)
8. When doing assessment, look for consistency between different opinions between psychiatrist, other clinicians, family members, etc. When discrepancies apparent, send for further assessment. |
|
|
Term
| Reasonable steps to take when assessed positive for violence |
|
Definition
1. Self 5150'ed
2. Changing txt plan (outpatient to in patient, stricter txt)
3. Warning of those threatened (other potential victims if in household)
4. Notify police (ask police to do a welfare check) |
|
|
Term
| Discuss Tarasoff as it relates to HIV/AIDS |
|
Definition
Client is willfully engaging in high ensafe sex and wants to infect others.
HIV/AIDS ls not a threat of violence. Responsibility of partner to also use protection. |
|
|
