DUTY TO WARN IN SOCIAL WORK
Sara Alexander
Herbert We Get Rid of This Taras-Awful Rule?
The infamous “Tarasoff duty”, decided during the landmark case, Tarasoff v. The
Regents of the University of California deemed it mandatory for a psychotherapist to warn and
protect an intended victim against danger if they perceived their client as a threat to said victim
(Herbert, 2002). Ventura psychiatrist Dr. Paul Herbert (2002) suggests an adjustment to the
language which would allow the therapist to decide if and when it is appropriate to warn the
victim. His suggestion is to make it clear that a therapist can warn, but is not required to, nor can
be held civilly liable.
As reflected in the 1996 Supreme Court case, Jaffee v. Redmond, therapy to support
mental health is an essential component of American citizens’ overall health (Lens, 2000) and
thus rules and laws affecting the delivery of this public good deserve thoughtfulness and careful
consideration. Holding therapists liable for not warning a potential victim of danger significantly
impairs the quality of care they are able to give. Confidentiality is essential in a therapist-client
relationship. Taking away the assurance that the client’s words will only be heard by the
therapist creates a barrier to their willingness to be open, truthful, and vulnerable, compromising
the effectiveness of the therapy. Additionally, what justification is there for requiring this duty in
these specific circumstances? Should a friend or coach be held liable in the same way? The
argument that it is due to the nature of the professional relationship does not stand. Therapists do
not possess some supernatural skill to predict a client’s violent potential. While training and
assessments exist, they are not computer algorithms. Holding a therapist liable to make this
judgment correctly is preposterous. Because of the complex nature of working with humans and
the high potential for error, Herbert’s suggested shift in language, protecting the therapist from
liability and allowing them to make their best judgment without fear of retribution, is the only
Sara Alexander
appropriate option.
There may be a concern that this shift in language will result in violence and potential
death to innocent victims. But does this risk not exist in every aspect of life? While this is a
legitimate possible consequence, the benefit of increased confidence in therapist-client
confidentiality far outweighs the hypothetical victim count. Clients who struggle to be open will
have the peace of mind that their communication in sessions is truly between them and their
therapist, resulting in more honesty and vulnerability. Therapists will be more relaxed knowing
that they can make these professional judgments to the best of their abilities without
consequence. The overall practice can only improve if Herbert’s suggestion is implemented.
Consider the immeasurable impact this will have on the therapeutic experience of countless
clients, now and in the future.
Sara Alexander
References
Herbert, P. (2002). The duty to warn: A reconsideration and critique. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 30(3), 417-420.
Lens, V. (2000). Protecting the confidentiality of the therapeutic relationship: Jaffe vs. Redmond.
Social Work, 45(3), 273-276.
