DUTY TO WARN

Duty to Warn



DUTY TO WARN

Introduction

Health and illness are considered as a complex, dynamic interaction of subjective and objective state of mind of the human condition. It tries to provide support and assistance to a person in the current life situation. Some embark on the profession to become successful, to give back to their community and for others it is to make a contribution to another's life.

The case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) is generally regarded as the leading case regarding the issue of “duty to warn.” The duty to warn concept implies that the mental health professionals have “the duty to protect third parties from harm” and requires “disclosure of threats of harm to others when the provider has a reasonable basis to believe the threat is real and harm could result.” Specifically, the California Supreme Court ruled “that psychotherapists who determine, or reasonably should determine, that their patients are likely to be danger to identifiable third parties, have a duty to take whatever steps are reasonable necessary to protect the potential victims.” (King & Kramer, 2008)

Discussion

The Hippocratic Oath, taken by most Western physicians for over two millennia, states, “Neither will I administer a venom to any individual when inquired to manage so, neither will I propose such a course”.

Ethics is and has always been an essential component of medical practice. Ethical principles such as respect for the individual, informed consent and confidentiality are the foundation of the physician-patient relationship. However, the application of these principles can sometimes be problematic; especially when physicians, patients, family members and other health professionals do not agree on what they believe is the right way to act in a given situation.

In its simplest definition, ethics is the study of morality - a reflection and a careful and systematic analysis of decisions and moral behavior, past, present or future.

Morality is the measure of value of a decision-making and human behavior. Under these definitions, ethics is primarily a matter of knowing when that morality relates to. The close relationship between these two terms is the concern of ethics to provide rational criteria for deciding or acting a certain way rather than another.

According to the court of Tarasoff, when a patient is being diagnosed by some mental disorder and need some mental health treatment, otherwise could be harmful for others, then it's the therapist duty to use give reasonable care in order to care for him and protect the intended victim against any threat. Similarly this case applies generally to all other case of same intensions.

The duty to warn mandate does not come without limitations and is always subject to interpretation by the states in which we practice. For example, in Tedrick v. Community Resource Center, Inc. (2007), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected logic of the Tarasoff judgment determining that mental healthcare providers could not be held liable for failing to protect a non-patient third party. “The providers, in treating the patient, did not undertake to render services ...