Walcott D M, Cerundolo P, Beck J C
Harvard Medical School, Tewksbury State Hospital, 365 East Street, Tewksbury, MA 01876, USA.
Behav Sci Law. 2001;19(3):325-43. doi: 10.1002/bsl.444.
In 1976, the Tarasoff case established a new legal duty to protect third parties from a psychiatric patient's foreseeable violence. After the Tarasoff case, courts expanded the scope and role of a clinician's duty to protect, sometimes in novel ways. Later interpretations of Tarasoff began to limit significantly the situations in which a duty to protect would attach. Recent Tarasoff-type cases in which courts have rejected the clinician's duty to warn suggest that Tarasoff is declining in significance. The advent of state statutes that codify the establishment and discharge of Tarasoff duty have contributed to a further limitation of the duty to protect. Lastly, when faced with the management of dangerous patients, we advocate for a thorough, well documented assessment of risk of violence as the best means for addressing concern about potential legal liability.
1976年，塔萨夫案确立了一项新的法律义务，即保护第三方免受精神病患者可预见的暴力侵害。塔萨夫案之后，法院扩大了临床医生保护义务的范围和作用，有时采用了新颖的方式。后来对塔萨夫案的解释开始大幅限制保护义务适用的情形。近期一些法院驳回临床医生警告义务的塔萨夫式案例表明，塔萨夫案的重要性在下降。编纂塔萨夫义务确立与解除的州法规的出现，进一步限制了保护义务。最后，在面对危险患者的管理时，我们主张对暴力风险进行全面、记录完善的评估，这是应对潜在法律责任担忧的最佳方式。
Zotero 插件