Landmark Legal Cases - Assignment Example

Regents of the university of California, 1974). The psychotherapist did not inform Tarasoff of the threat but notified the police of the threat and demanded that Poddar be taken to a mental hospital for observation. When Poddar was interviewed by the police concerning the matter, he denied and the police warned him to stay away from Tarasoff. Poddar located Tarasoff and murdered her with a knife. Tarasoff family sued the university police and health service accusing them of negligence in that the psychotherapist should have informed Tarasoff of the threats and the police should have held Poddar responsible for commitment.

Tarasoff vs. Regents of the University of California in 1974 has had significant impact in counseling field in that it was the first case whereby therapists had the responsibility to warn third parties from foreseeable injury or harm. With time, the same court dropped role or duty to warn in favor of responsibility to protect third from foreseeable harm (Tarasoff vs. Regents of the university of California, 1976). . In this sense, Psychotherapists have an obligation to review verbally and in writing the responsibilities and rights of with patients and counselor.

Informed consent is necessary since it is a continuous process in counseling. Tarasoff would have been informed about the threats in order to make her aware and avoid Poddar (Tarasoff vs. Regents of the university of California, 1974). The Tarasoff case has been accepted by most States as a reasonable legal duty as a foundation for establishing a duty of rational care among psychotherapists. Some cases such as Underwood vs. United States have illustrated that courts had considered issues of negligent release of and health or medical malpractice in the context of cases of violence by released psychiatric clients.

This case implied that psychotherapists should exercise rational care to protect the foreseeable victim of danger once the possibility of violence is determined. In this regard, Clinician or psychotherapist is under the duty of rational care both in determining the foreseeable harm to a potential victim and in protecting the foreseeable potential victim (Schuetz, 2006). The Tarasoff decision provided a platform for the duty to warn clause in the ACA Ethical code and many State laws or statutes.

The State of North Carolina has not on many occasions held up the duty to warn as stipulated in the ACA codes of ethics and a number of court cases. In this State, mental health professionals protect or guard the health of the public when a patient is under their control in mental health facility. However, they lack the authority to involuntarily release or commit a patient on the grounds