Leong G B, Eth S, Silva J A
UCLA School of Medicine.
J Forensic Sci. 1991 May;36(3):728-35.
The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.
保护义务，即塔拉索夫义务，被认为仅在临床环境中产生。加利福尼亚州最高法院最近在“人民诉克拉克案”中的裁决给这个时常引发争议的塔拉索夫问题增添了法律、临床和伦理困境。尽管塔拉索夫问题在克拉克案中只是一个次要的法律要点，但克拉克案可能产生的一个后果是，塔拉索夫警告可能被视为非保密信息，并在刑事审判中被采纳。因此，心理治疗师可能会在刑事法庭上作为控方证人出庭作证。虽然在加利福尼亚州最高法院1976年对“塔拉索夫诉加利福尼亚大学董事会案”作出裁决后，人们首先担心心理治疗中患者披露暴力倾向可能会受到寒蝉效应的影响，但约14年后该法院在“人民诉克拉克案”中的裁决可能会确保这种担忧最终成为现实。
