Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Duty to Warn”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1993

Near the conflagration: the wide duty to warn.

The "duty to warn" has become fixed in US law since the 1976 case of Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. In that case, the California Supreme Court decided that psychotherapists whose patients make a specific, serious threat of violence against a specific, clearly identifiable potential victim have a duty to warn the intended victim, directly or indirectly, of the threat. Tarasoff inspired several successful and unsuccessful lawsuits. A recent Vermont case has extended the duty to warn in that state to a threat of damage to property when persons may be physically harmed. The duty to warn is explicitly based on considerations of social utility and, as such, is attractive for courts to expand because an apparently minimal effort by therapists will often prevent substantial harm to victims. Some states have codified the duty to warn in a statute, but other states have refused to adopt the Tarasoff reasoning. In the absence of clear legal decisions to the contrary, psychotherapists may well anticipate that the duty to warn operates in their states.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Genetic risk: the new frontier for the duty to warn.

Mental health professionals usually think of the "duty to warn" in the context of mental illness. However, two state appellate courts have endorsed a duty to warn when children of a patient may be at risk genetically for acquiring the disease of their parents. In these cases, the courts held that a physician's legal obligations extended beyond his or her patient to the patient's children. This article discusses these cases, as well as issues regarding implementation of such a duty and the implications for the physician-patient relationship in a health care environment that will be dominated increasingly by genetics issues. The article concludes that it is premature to apply a duty to warn to the treatment of mental illness and to concerns regarding future criminal behavior.

Crime↗
PubMed2006

Back to the past in California: a temporary retreat to a Tarasoff duty to warn.

The original Tarasoff decision created a duty for California psychotherapists to warn potential victims of their patients. After rehearing the matter two years later, the California Supreme Court, in the landmark second Tarasoff decision, changed the duty to warn to a duty to protect potential victims, with warning as only one of the options for discharging that duty. Despite this change, the Tarasoff duty frequently was referred to erroneously as a duty to warn. This misunderstanding and an ambiguous California immunity statute culminated in "simplified" jury instructions and two appellate court decisions in 2004 in which it was assumed without question that there was a duty to warn, with liability for not doing so regardless of rationale. As a result of persistent lobbying by the California Psychiatric Association and other mental health groups, a recent bill corrected the problem created by the courts, returning the Tarasoff duty to a duty to protect.

California↗
PubMed1998

Defining the physician's duty to warn: consensus statement of Ontario's Medical Expert Panel on Duty to Inform.

Ontario's Medical Expert Panel on Duty to Inform was formed to consider the duty of Ontario physicians in circumstances where a patient threatens to kill or cause serious bodily harm to a third party. The panel was concerned about the implications of any duty to inform on the integrity of the physician-patient relationship, particularly with respect to confidentiality. The panel agreed that regulations safeguarding the confidentiality of patient information ought to be changed only if there is a critical reason for doing so, but, after deliberation, the panel members concluded that the need to protect the public from serious risk of harm is a paramount concern that should supersede the duty of confidentiality. The recommendations reported here were endorsed in principle by the panelists and the groups they represented (the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Ontario College of Family Physicians and the Ontario Medical Association) and are being implemented by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Questioning bioethics. AIDS, sexual ethics, and the duty to warn.

Bioethicists have virtually assumed that Tarasoff generated a duty to warn the sexual partners of an HIV-positive man that they risked infection. Yet given the views of sex and of AIDS that have evolved in the gay community, in many cases the parallels to Tarasoff do not hold. Bioethicists should at the least attend to the community's views, and indeed should go beyond doing mere "professional ethics" to participate in the moral self-exploration in which these views are located.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2002

The Texas Supreme Court speaks: mental health professionals have no duty to warn or protect third parties.

On June, 24, 1999, the Supreme Court of Texas held that a physician does not have a duty to warn a third party when a patient makes specific threats of harm toward a readily identifiable person. The 77th Texas legislative session that ended in the spring of 2001 did not address the Tarasoff duty to warn or protect a third party. Thus, the current holding in Texas allows that there is no Tarasoff duty to warn or protect a third party. This paper reviews that decision and identifies those occasions when a physician shall warn or may warn and to whom.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1986

Emergency physicians' duty to warn and protect: a critique and guidelines.

For ten years, psychotherapists in California have practiced under a court decision which imposed a duty to warn intended victims of violent crimes. Other cases extended the scope of the psychotherapists' duty to warn to an alarming degree. Although there have been no court cases involving emergency physicians, it is reasonable to assume that, under certain circumstances, the duty to warn could be extended to primary care physicians. Emergency physicians should familiarize themselves with applicable case law and should be aware of measures to use to avoid potential civil liability.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

The fin de millénaire duty to warn or protect.

At the turn of the millennium, the authors summarize the evolution of a clinician's duty to protect third persons from a patient's violent acts over the past half century, with special emphasis on jurisprudential developments in the last decade. Four evolutionary periods are identified: Pre-Tarasoff, Inception, Diversification, and Retreat. The period of Retreat from Tarasoff in the nineties is characterized by the following approaches to Tarasoff: adoption, statutory containment, rejection of a duty to warn, rejection of a duty to control voluntary patients, and proactive circumscription of any protective duties. A more rational jurisprudential approach would permit some measure of flexibility for the proper exercise of clinical discretion.

Duty to Warn↗
PubMed1992

Duty to warn.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Duty to Warn↗
PubMed2004

Duty to warn of genetic harm in breach of patient confidentiality.

Harm caused by the failure of health professionals to warn an at-risk genetic relative of her or his risk is genetic harm. Genetic harm should be approached using the usual principles of negligence. When these principles are applied, it is shown that (a) genetic harm is foreseeable; (b) the salient features of vulnerability, the health professional's knowledge of the risk to the genetic relative and the determinancy of the affected class and individual result in a duty of care being owed to the genetic relative; (c) the standard of care required to fulfil the duty to warn should be the expectations of a reasonable person in the position of the relative; and (d) causation is satisfied as the harm is caused by the failure of intervention of the health professional. Legislation enacted subsequent to the Report of the Commonwealth of Australia, Panel of Eminent Persons (Chair D Ipp), Review of the Law of Negligence Report (2002) and relevant to a duty to warn of genetic harm is considered. The modes of regulation and penalties for breach of any future duty to warn of genetic harm are considered.

Australia↗
PubMed1986

Clairvoyance vs. common sense: therapist's duty to warn and protect.

This article addresses the issue of a therapist's duty to warn and protect victims of domestic violence. In three different cases, California courts have found therapists liable for violent acts perpetrated by clients in their care. Based on the landmark Tarasoff case that mandated the therapist to report threats made by their clients regarding a specific victim, the courts have now extended the therapist's duty to include the reporting of those clients they assess as dangerous but who have not made specific threats, as well as the protection of unintended victims of violence, such as children. Therapists are concerned that the courts are expecting them to be clairvoyant and that psychologists may not be able to predict dangerousness. This article will discuss these concerns in light of the current state of the art regarding the prediction of dangerousness and its relationship to domestic violence. The author suggests specific clinical interventions for victims and perpetrators of domestic violence.

Adult↗