Posted: December 7th, 2014

Tarasoff—Exploring, Understanding, and Implications

A number of states have adopted “duty to warn” or “duty to protect” laws following the landmark court case, Tarasoff v Regents of University of California (1976). Similarly, regional laws and statutes regarding “duty to protect” parallel the implications from the Tarasoff case. Additionally, there are other mandated exceptions to maintaining client confidentiality such as reporting child, elder abuse, or the reckless transmission of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases.
Most statutes protect mandatory reporters from liability claims, including those based on a breach of confidentiality. Counselors need to remain apprised of their state or regional statutes related to confidentiality and “duty to warn.” They also should understand how these statutes apply to their own practice. As you review the Tarasoff case and related readings, be mindful of the issue of vicarious liability, which extends “duty to warn” liability to a counselor’s supervisor.
For this Assignment, explore ethical challenges related to issues of confidentiality. Review the Tarasoff media and consider the implications of the Tarasoff decision.
The Assignment (2–3 pages):
Use the Formatted Template for APA guidelines in the Learning Resources.
Summarize your state case law and statutes related to the Tarasoff decision. If you are an international student, summarize your region’s case law and statutes as they relate to “duty to warn” and/or “duty to protect.”
Explain how you might resolve “duty to warn” and/or “duty to protect’ dilemmas in your state or region, noting relevant ethical codes and ethical decision-making models. Be specific, referencing specific case law and statutes.
Explain how the media presented in this week contributed to your understanding of confidentiality and the challenges to confidentiality.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂