Psychologists' knowledge of their states' laws pertaining to Tarasoff-type situations.

Abstract

This study examined psychologists' knowledge of their legal and ethical responsibilities with imminently dangerous clients. We randomly surveyed 1,000 psychologists from four states and received 300 useable responses (30%). Most psychologists (76.4%) were misinformed about their state laws, believing that they had a legal duty to warn when they did not, or assuming that warning was their only legal option when other protective actions less harmful to client privacy were allowed. Moreover, in spite of the inaccuracy of their knowledge, many respondents were confident that they understood the duty to protect in their own state. Contrary to expectation, we found no significant association between legal knowledge and continuing education in legal and ethical issues, graduate training in ethics, or clinical experience with dangerous clients. These findings suggest that educational experiences during and after graduate school may not be meeting the needs of professionals to understand the complicated array of state laws and ethical duties regarding dangerous clients. We recommend several changes in the provisions of these experiences to better protect psychologists and clients from unintentional risks.

“Doc, There's Something I Have To Tell You”: Patient Disclosure to Their Psychotherapist of Unprosecuted Murder and Other Violence

“…This may be an overestimate, as Pabian et al (2009) cited several studies that indicate psychologists to be generally ill-informed about their obligations under state laws. Regardless, nearly one in five did not feel adequately informed.…”

“…Mental health professionals must know the specific obligations of the relevant statutes in the jurisdictions in which they practice. Of great relevance to this point is a recent study completed by Pabian, Welfel, and Beebe (2009), who found that of those psychologists surveyed, 76.4% "were misinformed about their state laws, believing that they had a legal duty to warn when they did not, or assuming that warning was their only legal option when other protective actions less harmful to client privacy were allowed" (p. 8).…”

Home-Based Telemental Healthcare Safety Planning: What You Need to Know

“…2,7 Moreover, some states do not have statutes or guidelines for exercising duty to protect, and among the states that do have statutes, there is considerable variability in language and expectations for clinicians. [8][9][10] Clinicians who are considering home-based TMH should be aware of civil commitment and duty to warn/protect requirements in their jurisdiction as well as that of the patient. TMH clinicians should also be aware of applicable institutional-level guidance and SOPs that may address these issues.…”

The Elephant in the Room: Dealing with an Unprosecuted Criminal Disclosure in a Therapeutic Setting

“…If a therapist unnecessarily reports their clients' disclosure to the police it can have a negative impact in several ways. It can lead to damaging the established therapeutic relationship, result in a legal claim against the therapist for negligence, a risk of professional conduct complaints and limit any future interventions for the client [24]. On the other hand, the non-disclosure of information can result in a risk of prosecution for the therapist, the possibility of a client committing another serious offence putting the safety of the public at risk, as well as limiting the authorities' ability to establish a conviction [11].…”

“…In Australia, a research team highlighted therapists' confusion regarding their legal duty to report clients they believe to be in danger, and also suggested that therapists are more comfortable with their ethical obligations in contrast to their legal obligations [29]. Similarly, in the United States of America, Pabian et al [24] found over seventy-six per cent of respondents were misinformed about their state laws, although respondents felt confident in the knowledge of their duty to warn obligations. Additionally, Walfish et al [30] found therapists in the US are generally aware of their duty to warn obligations when a third party is in danger, but are not clear on the issue of reporting past violence.…”