Am Psychol. 2015 Apr;70(3):284-5. doi: 10.1037/a0039064.
Comments on the article by D. N. Bersoff (see record 2014-28692-002). Bersoff poses a much-needed challenge to the rationale of laws based on Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), which exist in most states and require therapists to warn the intended victim, police, and/or others when a patient voices serious threats of violence. If Tarasoff-related laws were ever to be modified, research support would be required. To begin with, what is the experience of other countries that happen to address this issue differently and of the seven states that, according to Bersoff, have not adopted Tarasoff-related requirements? Another question is whether patients who are unwilling to invite the consequences of therapist disclosure ever reveal reportable intentions to their therapists anyway-say, by mistake or impulse-thus making current law marginally useful? Rules that undercut sacrosanct confidentiality create a catch-22 in which the indisputable ethical necessity of informed consent has an unintended consequence- namely, therapy is preceded by informed consent but precluded by it.
评论 D.N.贝索夫（见记录 2014-28692-002）的文章。贝索夫对基于塔拉斯奥夫诉加利福尼亚大学董事会案（1976 年）的法律的基本原理提出了一个非常需要的挑战，这些法律存在于大多数州，并要求治疗师在患者表达严重暴力威胁时警告预期的受害者、警察和/或其他人。如果塔拉斯奥夫相关法律要进行修改，就需要有研究支持。首先，其他国家在处理这个问题时有什么不同的经验，而根据贝索夫的说法，有七个州没有采用与塔拉斯奥夫相关的要求？另一个问题是，那些不愿意承担治疗师披露后果的患者是否会有意向他们的治疗师透露可报告的意图——比如说，由于疏忽或冲动——从而使现行法律略有作用？破坏神圣不可侵犯的保密性的规则造成了一个两难境地，即在知情同意的无可争议的伦理必要性有一个意外的后果——即治疗是在知情同意之前进行的，但也被它所阻止。
