Tarasoff: protective privilege versus public peril



	Full Text (PDF)
	Alert me when this article is cited
	Alert me if a correction is posted



	Email this article to a Colleague
	Similar articles in this journal
	Similar articles in PubMed
	Alert me to new issues of the journal
	Add to My Articles & Searches
	Download to citation manager



	Citing Articles via HighWire
	Citing Articles via Google Scholar



	Articles by Gurevitz, H.
	Search for Related Content



	PubMed Citation
	Articles by Gurevitz, H.

Am J Psychiatry 1977; 134:289-292
Copyright © 1977 by American Psychiatric Association

REGULAR ARTICLES

Tarasoff: protective privilege versus public peril

H Gurevitz

The author reviews the decision made by the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California, et al., which stipulated that therapists must warn authorities specified by law as well as potential victims of possible dangerous actions of their patients. He states the basic points of the Northern California Psychiatric Society's amicus curiae brief on behalf of the university regents and discusses the issues raised by the Tarasoff decision vis-- 53a-vis the mental health profession and its dealings with potentially violent individuals.

This article has been cited by other articles:

K. Gutierrez-Lobos, E. Wagner, B. Schmidl-Mohl, and B. Schmid-Siegel
Wrapped in Silence: Psychotherapists and Confidentiality in the Courtroom
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, February 1, 2000; 44(1): 33 - 45.
[Abstract] [PDF]

W. J. BOWERS, D. J. GIVELBER, and C. L. BLITCH
How Did Tarasoff Affect Clinical Practice?
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1, 1986; 484(1): 70 - 85.
[Abstract]

L. D. Hankoff
Associate Editor's Comments: Violence and Psychotherapy
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, July 1, 1985; 29(2): vii - viii.

Get information about faster international access.