case studies (Essay Sample)

1 Case: Tarasoff v. Board of Regents (1976) This case is about disclosures to third parties. It is a landmark case involving conflict between the disclosure of information to a third party and doctor-patient confidentiality. The question is whether a physician may have a legal duty to breach a patient’s confidentiality. Facts: Prosenjit Poddar, an Indian graduate student studying naval architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, started to date a fellow student named Tatiana Tarasoff. He kissed her a few times and felt he had a special relationship with her. He was totally unfamiliar with American mores/customs and had never had a date before. He felt betrayed when Tatiana flaunted her relationships with other men. Because of his depression he went to a psychologist, Dr. Moore, at the University Health Service. He revealed his intention to get a gun and shoot Tatiana Tarasoff. Dr. Moore sent a letter to the campus police requesting them to take Poddar to a psychiatric hospital. The campus police interviewed Mr. Poddar, but he convinced them that he was not dangerous. They released him on the promise that he would stay away from Ms. Tarasoff. When the Health Service psychiatrist in charge returned from vacation, he directed that the letter to the police be destroyed and no further action taken. Mr. Poddar moved in with Tatiana’s brother over the summer while Tatiana was visiting her aunt in Brazil. When Tatiana returned, Mr. Poddar stalked her and stabbed her to death. The parents of Tatiana sued the campus police, Health Service employees, and Regents of the University of California for failing to warn them that their daughter was in danger. The court held that the psychiatrist was liable to warn the intended victim of the possible danger. It stated that the protective privilege of confidential communication ends when public peril begins and intimated that, if a physician has cause to believe that there is a reasonable possibility that his patient might carry out the threat against a specifically named person, he should warn the intended victim or notify the police, or take whatever steps reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Dissent/opposition: Concern was expressed that the majority decision may result in an increase in violence because patients might not seek treatment. There was also concern that psychiatrists may over commit patients to avoid the risk of civil liability. Case summary 1 The patient has made specific threats of violence; 2 To a specific and identified victim 3 There is either a physician-patient relationship or a "special" relationship between the patient and the victim; and 4 The disclosure must be to the extent necessary to allow the victim to avoid harm and allow the authorities to intervene. Physicians therefore have a duty to warn and may be allowed to disclose confidential information in fulfilment of a moral or social obligation, provided the information is given in good faith and not in reckless disregard of consequences to the patient 845819212349 Holding:- The majority of the supreme court of California affirmed that the relationship between the p sych o th e rap ist o r d o cto r an d p a tien t was o n e which ‘ma y su p p o rt a ff irma tive du ties fo r th e b e ne fit o f third persons’. 836675162574 2 Case: W. v. Edgell (1990); Disclosure in the public interest The patient was a prisoner in a secure hospital following convictions for killing five people and wounding several others. He made an application to a mental health tribunal to be transfe...