Download Impact of Tarasoff v. Regents & Morgan v. Fairfield on Mental Health Confidentiality and more Thesis Management Accounting in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Court Rulings Confidentiality: Two Court Rulings Walden University Purpose This paper will discuss two court cases: Tarasoff v. Regents of California, and Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center and what they've done to impact the practice of mental health care professionals. Tarasoff v. Regents of California Tarasoff made an immense impact and ultimately changed how patients and doctors interact. This case was influential because it led to the requirement that mental health professionals need to warn anyone of possible threats made by the patient. Even though this does cause a breach in doctor-patient confidentiality, it is in the best interest of anyone that might be in danger, which overturns doctor- patient confidentiality (Edwards , 2012). In this case, an individual named Poddar had visited a psychologist, and in this session, he mentioned that he wanted to kill Tarasoff (Edwards , 2012). Even though he was detained, he was released because he did not appear irrational. Sadly, Poddar did end up killing Tarasoff, which led to the psychologist being sued because there was no warning (Edwards , 2012); She was not notified or protected. This case shifted doctor-patient confidentiality in the sense that it will stand unless there is an immediate danger to the patient call or to a third party. Even though the safest thing to do is to warn a person about potential danger, this has caused patients to omit certain things or not be as open with their health care providers, like 2 Court Rulings doctors, psychologists, counselors, and so on. Health care professionals would have to disclose that they will maintain doctor confidentiality until the situation puts the patient or a third party victim in immediate harm. Given this, patients might be more reluctant to provide details of such issues impacting the trust between patients with the health care provider. Given that suicide is considered a risk directly to the patient, if a patient is a minor, the parents will be the ones who are contacted if suicide was discussed and the doctor believes but the patient is in danger. It was believed that implementing the DTW laws, there would be an increase in suicide for adults and teens, but it was proven that the laws had made a positive impact. The ruling of Tarasoff v. Regents of California was for the interest of public safety in which it outweighed doctor-patient confidentiality (Edwards , 2012). Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center In this case of Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center, harm was also done to a third party. A Male named Matt was not able to get the proper help pertaining to his mental health issues. His parents tried to get him help involuntarily, but they were unable to. This lead to the killing of Matts parents due to the voices he heard in his head. This case as well ruled in favor of public safety outweighing confidentiality (Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling, 1997). Comparison These cases do hold similarities between the two. in the first case, it was stated directly to the patient's mental health professional that there was a plan to kill a third party person. And the second case, even though it wasn't directly stated, many signs indicated that Matt was a violent person and his mental disorders will inhibit these violent acts. The fact that in both court cases
