The Tarasoff Decisions: Suing Psychotherapists to Safeguard Society

Abstract

In this comment on the decisions of the California Supreme Court in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, Dr. Stone argues that if society wishes to introduce greater safeguards into involuntary civil commitment procedures, it must be willing to accept an increased risk from those of the mentally disturbed who are potentially violent. Although there are circumstances in which it will be appropriate for the psychotherapist to warn the police of danger posed by his patient, it is counterproductive to impose upon psychotherapists a duty to provide additional or alternative protection by warning potential victims. Such a duty, he explains, is incompatible with an effective therapeutic relationship and would deter both patients and therapists from undertaking treatment, thereby further increasing the risk of violence to which society is exposed.