Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California- Confidentiality Case Study
This case refers to the murder of a student at the University of California by an acquaintance. The case is considered a landmark case since it defined the duty of professionals to warn the public or potential victims (Stone, 2009). In this case, the patient had indicated to the attending psychologist that he had the desire to harm the victim following a rejection. While the doctor did not warn the family or the victim, he called the police who arrested the patient but later released him. The patient finally stabbed the victim to death with a knife (2009).
The two ethical issues that emerge from this are the need to keep the confidentiality of a patient and the need to ensure public safety. It is arguable that due to the breach of confidentiality, Poddar did not continue with counseling since he felt exposed and his privacy violated. Confidentiality is critical, between counselor and patient. A patient needs to feel comfortable and to have confidence in the attendant for therapy to be a success (Glosoff, & Pate, 2002). The other issue is the commitment to the safety of the public who may be harmed by the patient. The doctor should have discussed with the police the gravity of the danger that the victim, Tatiana was exposed to. It is the duty to give adequate information that can help prevent possible damage. On the other hand, the doctor, and the police should have to facilitate follow-up with the patient to ensure that he goes through with the treatment, and to ascertain that the victim was no longer in danger.
The challenge in implementing confidentiality, while at the same time ensuring the safety of the public lies in striking a balance between the two. Upholding one means losing the other. The key to dealing with this is to focus on providing safety for the public, without making the patient feel victimized for their illness. It is also important to explain to the patient the need for disclosure beforehand so that they can understand the rationale for the breach of confidentiality.
References
Glosoff, H. L., & Pate, R. H., Jr. (2002). Privacy and confidentiality in school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 6(1), 20–27.
