'Tarasoff' defendants: Social justice or ethical decay?

G. B. Leong, S. Eth, J. A. Silva

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California that a duty to protect arises when a psychotherapist's patient poses a serious danger of physical harm to an identifiable third party. Discharging this duty by the issuance of a warning breaches the confidentiality of the psychotherapist patient relationship. However, the potential benefit to society offsets the possible harm caused by the breach of confidentiality. Until recently, such warnings have served little purpose outside of possibly preventing harm. However, the cumulative effect of three recent California Supreme Court cases has been to permit the use of these confidentiality breaches in criminal proceedings to fulfill prosecutorial goals. Nonetheless, the cost of achieving social justice may be at the expense of other important ethical values for both the psychotherapeutic professions and society in general.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)86-93
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Forensic Sciences
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes


  • dangerousness
  • duty to protect
  • ethics
  • justice
  • privilege
  • psychiatry
  • testimony

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Law


Dive into the research topics of ''Tarasoff' defendants: Social justice or ethical decay?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this