Sonkin D J, Ellison J E
University of New Hampshire, Durham.
Violence Vict. 1986 Fall;1(3):205-14.
After ten years of court decisions that have gradually broadened the scope of the psychotherapist's duty to protect potential victims from violence, California has recently passed legislation that limits liability only to those cases where a patient has made a specific threat to an identifiable victim. Although this legislation has articulated the appropriate clinical response in such situations, it may have created a false sense of security for therapists treating patients who are perpetrators or victims of family violence. Though some perpetrators of violence do make a specific verbal threat, therapists are likely to encounter many more who do not verbalize a threat, but nevertheless pose a serious danger to their family members. This article briefly discusses the recent history of the duty-to-protect issue and the violence prediction literature as they relate to domestic violence. Specific interventions are suggested for clinicians in cases where the violence potential is great but no specific threat is made by the client.
在历经十年逐渐扩大心理治疗师保护潜在受害者免受暴力侵害职责范围的法庭判决之后，加利福尼亚州最近通过了一项立法，将责任限制在患者对可识别受害者做出明确威胁的那些案件中。尽管这项立法明确了在这类情况下适当的临床应对措施，但它可能给治疗家庭暴力施暴者或受害者的治疗师造成了一种虚假的安全感。虽然一些暴力施暴者确实会做出明确的口头威胁，但治疗师可能会遇到更多未明确表达威胁但仍对其家庭成员构成严重危险的人。本文简要讨论了与家庭暴力相关的保护职责问题的近期历史以及暴力预测文献。针对暴力可能性很大但客户未做出明确威胁的情况，为临床医生提出了具体的干预措施。
