Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California

Tarasoff v Regents of the University

The Tarasoff V Regents of the University is considered a controversial case and sets a precedent regarding the professional duty to inform others of any harm that may strike. Tarasoff v Regents of the State of California University was a lawsuit in which the Supreme Court of California ruled that mental health practitioners had an obligation of  safeguarding several persons who are typically confronted with physical assault by patients (NCSL, 2018). Unfortunately, in 1974, the warning given out ended up threatening the Individuals. Still, later in 1976, after Supreme Court did a second hearing, the idea was changed to offer the responsibility of offering protection the victim in the discussion.

The Impacts of  Tarasoff Case on the Health Professionals

Tarasoff v Regents of the University is a law passed by the Court of Supreme in 1976, discussing the factors between a mental health doctor and a patient-facing mental challenges(NCSL, 2018). In reflection on matters pertaining law, the health professionals, including the psychotherapists, have been obligated to offer protection to people with a mental health conditions to prevent them from bodily harm. In contrast, the law articulates that a psychotherapist has a duty of protecting by either warning the third party in a situation whereby the therapist believes beyond doubt that the victim might inflict a severe body injury or pose an extreme risk of inducing the body injury. 

My background

I do reside in State of Maryland. The government in Maryland has introduced laws to guide the health professionals further concerning the obligation of warning the statutes in Maryland. The government introduced a program to Counter the extreme violents (CVE) in order to fill up the gap left by the pre criminal due to increased violent extremists(Seligman, 1977). The four parts inclusive in the program discuss on; the engagement of the community, Education about matters of radicalization, countering the Narratives, and the Intervention Programs, which are designed to deter or give a re-direction to persons.

The confidential medical laws enacted accord the psychotherapists and the mental health professionals the duty of revealing the information concerning a patient to either the infectant or the Health and Human Services Department. It brings out clear that following state laws, for instance, concerning the HIPPA Privacy Rule, presently are two bodies entrusted, which are; the infectant and the Health and Human Services Department (Seligman, 1977). The law of Maryland is much bigger comparison to the federal laws, which are permissive. They offer a go-ahead for the medical practitioner to disclose information to any agency of the government which conducts  authorized actions. In addition, Maryland law permits the giving away of data for investigation purposes.

My thoughts concerning risk assessment

In accordance to my thoughts, I make a realization that the duty to inform is one of the best strategies to be considered in assessing the risk in the Tarasoff v Regents of University law. The main goal of risk assessment is to identify situations where a person may turn to be violent and risks where the issue of violence might be below. 

Conclusion

The Tarasoff v Regents University case offers uncountable answers to health sector and provides health assistance to patients suffering from health issues. In issue pertaining risk assessment and duty to inform, it is evident that the Maryland laws offer broader and more effective solutions than the federal laws, which carry a number of  limitations. 

References

NCSL. (2018, October 12). Mental Health Professionals’ Duty to Warn. Ncsl.org. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx

Seligman, B. (1977). Issue 1 Article 9 1-1977 Regents of the University of California, 29 Hastings L. Hastings Law Journal, 29. https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2527&context=hastings_law_journal