The Tarasoff Warning and the Duty to Protect: Implications for Family Medicine

Since the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, mental health professionals have had an explicit legal duty to warn potential adult victims of violence. Subsequent case law expanded this standard to a broader duty-to-protect. Primary health care providers are increasingly treating psychiatric patients for whom the duty to protect is applicable. However, these providers are often unaware of the legal, ethical, and clinical issues involved. Assessment of violence risk should include demographic, psychiatric, and social dimensions. Interventions include notifying law enforcement authorities, potential victims, and possible use of psychiatric hospitalization to prevent aggressive behavior. The duty-to-protect as a standard-of-care has been applied to several other clinical situations, including impaired driving capacity, high-risk HIV behavior, and child sexual abuse. The article includes a step-by-step clinical protocol for evaluation and intervention in dangerous situations.