Confidentiality After Tarasoff
Tasha Williams
PSY/305
University of Phoenix
Gretchen Bradhorst
May 23, 2015

Introduction
In a civilized society, rules dictate how individuals must conduct themselves in order to secure public and personal safety. Often, professionals in the Health Care field are faced with decisions that may compromises a clients’ confidentiality in order to protect the well being of others or the public at large. Because of the Tarasoff decision, “Many social workers believe that they have a duty to warn third parties of the danger posed to them by clients,”( Kagle, Jill Doner and Kopels, Sandra, April 29, 1993). It is no secret that a person may tell their healthcare worker of their intentions whether fictional or fact. Yet, a health care worker has an obligation to determine what a clients’ intentions maybe when it comes to harming themselves or others. Although there are confidentiality rules for clients, a healthcare worker has a duty to warn a third party’s when their safety or well being maybe in danger.
Explain the decision of Tarasoff v. the Board of Regents of the University of California The Tarasoff decision has helped healthcare workers to understand their obligation to their clients, jobs and their duty to public safety. We see that a client indicated that he would harm a third party to his worker the worker may have thought the client may not have been serious about hurting a third party. But, in reality a young woman lost her life. This could have been avoided had the worker taken action to make sure the third party would be safe from the threats of the client. In my opinion, any client who makes comments to harm someone is in fact making a threat. There is a thin line between making a statement and making a threat. Anyone with common sense should know that a person in treatment is capable of harming themselves or others. So it can be reasonable to assumed that a person in treatment can be taken seriously when he/she says they intend to bring bodily harm to a third party.
Explain how that relates to the therapist-client relationship in regards to confidentiality This decision relates to the therapist-client relationship in regards to confidentiality, because it clearly points out that the public safety comes before personal safety. “Some states have statues requiring that confidentiality in privilege be guaranteed to the therapist-client relationship,” (Kagle, Jill Doner and Kopels, Sandra, April 29, 1993). What we mean when we say this, is that a patients’ confidentiality is of the utmost concern. Yet, we live in a society that must be protected from harm at the expense of those that do harm to themselves and others. Not everyone in treatment is a danger to themselves and others but, it is up to the professional to use their better judgment to determine who is dangerous or not.
Explain the process of informed consent and refusal When it comes to