Rudegeair T J, Appelbaum P S
University of Massachusetts Medical School.
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1992;20(4):419-26.
Psychotherapists' duty to protect potential victims from their patients' violence has evolved in recent years toward a narrower set of obligations. This reformulation of the duty appears to us to be consistent with a sociobiological analysis of the reasonableness of compelled altruism. Altruistic behavior (e.g., rescuing a potential victim) takes place rarely in the animal world, and even among humans usually occurs only in situations in which reciprocity is likely. The Tarasoff-like duty to protect violates this sociobiological rule by requiring therapists to place the interests of an unknown victim over a known patient, and even to subordinate their own interests to the victim's. This has never been a socially tenable position. Psychotherapists appear to have escaped from this situation by avoiding potentially dangerous patients. The changes in the duty to protect have mitigated this dilemma, by moving the duty in a direction consistent with the evolutionary theory of altruism.
近年来，心理治疗师保护潜在受害者免受患者暴力侵害的职责已演变为一系列更狭义的义务。在我们看来，这种职责的重新界定与对强制利他主义合理性的社会生物学分析相一致。利他行为（例如营救潜在受害者）在动物界很少发生，即使在人类中通常也只发生在可能存在互惠的情况下。类似塔萨夫案中的保护职责违反了这条社会生物学规则，因为它要求治疗师将未知受害者的利益置于已知患者之上，甚至将自己的利益置于受害者之下。这从来都不是一个在社会上站得住脚的立场。心理治疗师似乎通过避开潜在危险患者而摆脱了这种局面。保护职责的变化朝着与利他主义进化理论一致的方向发展，从而缓解了这一困境。
