Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California Case Study

Introduction

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1976 case involves a murder plan committed in 1969 on a university student known as Tatiana Tarasoff. The killer was an Indian graduate student at the University of California (Johnson, Persad & Sisti, 2019). They met in a class and went for several dates. However, they disagreed, and Poddar, the graduate student, started stalking her while undergoing psychological counseling. He confessed to his therapist his intention to kill Tarasoff. Poddar stopped going for the treatment. Mr. Moore, together with another therapist, wrote to the police about the murder threats. Poddar was apprehended, but he denied and was later released. He later stabbed Tarasoff with a butcher knife. Tarasoff's parents filed a lawsuit against the therapist for failing to inform them directly. The therapists defended themselves on the grounds of confidentiality of the third party. In ruling the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of California, the court made a ruling that the necessity for therapists to safeguard the public was more vital than maintaining the client-therapist confidentiality. This paper focuses on discussing the ethical/moral principles involved in the case and the ethical conflicts.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

One of the ethical principles involved in the case is fidelity. The principle requires the therapist to maintain a trust relationship between the client and the therapist. In the case, the therapist breached the trust relationship by threatening to report Poddar (Johnson, Persad & Sisti, 2019). He also went ahead to report the case to the police, which made Poddar lose trust in him. The ethical conflict is that the therapist must maintain the confidentiality of the patient to ensure a trust relationship. However, keeping the fidelity would have posed a more significant threat to Tarasoff, who also had to be protected.

Additionally, there is a beneficence. The ethical principle suggests that therapists have a choice to report Poddar to the police to ensure that he does not carry out his malicious plans and end up in jail. There is also a conflict that informing him would put him in jeopardy as he will be at risk of getting arrested. The principle also suggests that the therapist should act in a way that ensures the overall benefit of the public (Allan, 2019). Therefore, therapists had a duty to report Poddar as it could have led to the protection from the loss of life and the common good of Tarasoff. They could have informed Tarasoff to ensure she takes care of herself to avoid being harmed.

Besides, non-maleficence principle requires therapists not to harm their clients. There is, therefore, an ethical conflict of avoidance to utilize interventions that could pose harm to the client. The therapist also has a primary duty to his patient, whereas the second duty is to protect others where the patient poses a possible danger to their lives (Allan, 2017). Therefore, keeping quiet about the issue would have caused harm to the third party who is Tarasoff. Thus, therapists had a moral responsibility of reporting Poddar's intentions to the relevant authority so that a legal step could be taken against him. Besides, autonomy requires the therapist to consider the choices made by the client on how to handle the issue. It, therefore, requires the therapist to enquire about the patient's authorization to make a warning to the intended victim. However, doing so could cause more reiteration from the client. Breaching the principle would protect the right of the third party.

Also, informing the third party violates the confidential relationship between the patient and the therapist. Maintaining confidentiality may pose an imminent danger to the third party (Allan, 2017). Therefore, failing to warn the intended victim and informing the police would protect the client's confidentiality interests, maintain confidentiality, and build trust in the healing relationship. The dangers of cautioning the planned victim include breaching the client's privacy, violating the privacy, and loss of trust between the therapist and the patient. The therapist should consider the right to life of the third party, which surpasses the maintenance of faith.

The court held that a therapist must protect a victim from danger planned by the patients. The therapist to whom a patient has confided a murder must protect the intended victim from harm by warning them and incorporating other interventions to protect them from damage. Therefore, the therapists had a duty to inform the police and Tarasoff of Poddar's intention to murder her (Pandya, 2019). However, therapists should notify patients of the limits of confidentiality at the beginning of the sessions. Most of them are also likely to warn the potential victims of the patients' malicious acts. They have to protect the third party when a threat statement is made against them.

Conclusively, in the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) case, the therapists fail to inform the intended victim of the planned murder intentions by the patients to ensure she takes precautions. In the end, the victim is butchered by the patient. After consideration of the ethical principles, the therapists had a duty to inform Tarasoff of the murder plan to ensure she takes the necessary precautions. Therefore, in the case where a victim's life is in danger, therapists must inform the intended victims and take the steps needed to protect them from harm.

References

Allan, A. (2017). A principled approach to ethical issues for psychologists in prisons and secure settings.Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315673073-20

Johnson, R., Persad, G., & Sisti, D. (2019). The Tarasoff Rule: The Implications of Interstate Variation and Gaps in Professional Training. Focus, 17(4), 435-442.Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.17402

Pandya, S. K. (2019). Confidentiality vs. harm to another. Indian journal of medical ethics, 4(3).Retrieved from https://www.ijme.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-uninformed-spouse-Balancing-confidentiality-and-other-professional_IJME-July-Sept-2019-1.pdf