Duty to protect


The duty to protect is the responsibility of a mental health professional to protect patients and others from foreseeable harm. If a client makes statements that suggest suicidal or homicidal ideation, the clinician has the responsibility to take steps to warn intended victims, and if necessary, initiate involuntary commitment.

History

The duty to protect was established by Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, which has been widely adopted by other states. This case determined that the clinician has the duty to warn an identifiable victim. Ewing v. Goldstein extended the duty to protect to include acting upon the statements of third parties that indicate possible threat, and determined that it was not sufficiently discharged by initiating involuntary commitment; warning identifiable victims is also necessary.

Criticism

The duty to protect has been criticized by some clinical psychologists because it may prevent people seeking help and in fact may cause unnecessary violence because it prevents clients from getting support in resolving their problems. Indeed in the Tarasoff case, the police had been warned about Podar resulting in him being questioned and released and ceasing working with his psychiatrist: the violation of confidential involved in this case could be viewed as the cause of death.