Potential erosion of psychotherapist-patient privilege beyond California: Dangers of "criminalizing" Tarasoff

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 437-449

  Weinstock, Robert ^a,c   Leong, Gregory B ^b   Arturo Silva, J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c VA PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL LAW; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; LEGAL LIABILITY; PSYCHOTHERAPIST; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

CALIFORNIA; DUTY TO WARN; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PSYCHOTHERAPY;

EID: 0034936741     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.443     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Statutory approaches to limiting liability for their patients' violent acts
2. Judge bars testimony of 3 psychiatrists in murder case
3. The patient or his victim: The therapist's dilemma
4. The dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege: The Tarasoff duty and the Jaffee footnote
5. The psychotherapist as witness for the prosecution: The criminalization of Tarasoff
6. "Tarasoff defendants": Social justice or ethical decay?
7. Silence or death. The limits of confidentiality when the patient threatens a psychotherapist
8. Ethical considerations of clinical use of Miranda-like warnings
9. Ethical considerations of giving Miranda-type warnings in psychiatric evaluation in criminal cases
10. Another courtroom assault on the confidentiality of the psychotherapist-patient relationship
11. Psychotherapist and patient in the California Supreme Court: Ground lost and ground regained
12. Utilizing therapists to obtain death penalty verdicts
13. California evidence code