Posted on 01/04/2017 5:26:24 AM PST by tired&retired
Although psychiatrists are legally required to protect the confidentiality of mental health information disclosed by their patients, most states have laws either mandating or permitting psychiatrists to reveal confidential information when patients pose harm to a third party.
Most of these laws, commonly referred to as “duty to warn” laws, were passed following the seminal court case of Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California. This case established a duty among mental health professionals to warn potential victims of a risk of violence. The laws afford mental health professionals immunity from civil and criminal liability for the disclosure of confidential mental health information under certain conditions. The specific requirements of these laws vary by state, and it is important to consult your local attorney or risk management professional when faced with a duty to warn/protect situation.
Most jurisdictions now follow one of three approaches:
Mandatory duty to warn (majority of states) Permissive duty to warn No duty to warn (minority of states)
In a “mandatory” duty to warn state, mental health professionals must warn potential victims (and in some states, law enforcement) of threats made by a patient, when all three of the following conditions are met:
A specific threat of physical harm is made. There is a clearly identified or reasonably identified victim. The patient has the intent and ability to carry out the threat. In a “permissive” duty to warn state, mental health professionals may breach patient confidentiality to protect a third party, but they are not required to do so. Generally, the same three conditions cited above should be present to disclose otherwise protected information.
In a “no duty to warn” state, mental health professionals are not permitted to breach patient confidentiality to warn third parties of potential threats.
(Excerpt) Read more at psychnews.psychiatryonline.org ...
Reference for map:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx
Lock up the criminally insane.
No need for such background checks if the insane must be accompanied by a legal guardian at all times.
The pills don’t cure them, they just make them pass for normal until they snap. Or quit taking their meds. Or augment their meds with pot and other drugs.
The link above lists the laws for each state.
The trend has been to question people about their gun ownership. It is required in the VA Hospitals.
The VA has even taken a position that if an individual is not capable of managing their finances and another person is appointed to handle their finances, the Veteran must turn over their guns.
The leading gay advocacy groups are seeking to end laws that require those with AIDS to notify past sexual partners and to notify any potential new sexual partners before they have sex.
Because AIDS Pride and all that.
This was a wrongful death case I met in Negligence Torts a couple years ago. And the beat goes on. This adds a duty to probe for more information about violence threats. That goes way beyond a duty to warn.
I’m tired of being told that the criminally insane are not accountable for their crimes by reason of insanity but permitted to threaten the daily existence of everyone else, and everyone else’s rights are trampled because an insane person who is receiving outpatient treatment supersedes the general populace.
Put them under house arrest, put them in an institution. Require a legal guardian at all times.
If psychiatrists are required to notify the authorities when it is disclosed/confessed that a target has been identified and threats have been made, next thing you know it the military will not be permitted to let fellow Sgt. Akbars make death threats against the lowly kufir and retain their positions.
The 1976 Tarasoff case was what we studied in school.
I can see the arguments on both sides of this. On one hand people with mental issues, who tend to be paranoid anyway, might just refuse treatment or clam up and not say anything if the know the Psychiatrist is essentially required to snitch to law enforcement. On the other hand I would certainly want to know is some nut had me on his hit list. The question is where do you draw the line? If a patient says, “I hate my boss, I would sure like to punch that old dog in the face.” Is that a threat? Or is it just someone blowing off steam and thinking what most people have fantasized about at least once in their life? Should law enforcement and/or the boss be informed?
Such as the Virginia Tech wacko. The college couldn’t be given a report. His parent couldn’t do anything about his meds because he was an adult. He was untouchable. Free to kill as many people as he wanted and no one could legally stop him. He and his fellow psychos should be branded on their foreheads and locked up for the sake of everyone else. Political correctness allowed him to kill 32 people and injure 17 more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.