Abstract
When the duty to protect of Tarasoff was imposed upon psychotherapists by the Supreme Court of California, therapists in other states wondered whether or not other courts would adopt the legal reasoning and apply the Tarasoff Principle to them. Resulting court decisions have been much more complex and contradictory than this early question would suggest. Even the legal underpinnings of the Tarasoff Principle, where it has been adopted, are diverse: it is as amorphous and plastic as any principle can be, molded so differently by various courts. This updated review argues that the trend toward diversity and inconsistency has become greater with the increase in Tarasoff-like cases in recent years, beclouding any real moral value that may be present. Given the conflicting social values involved in this kind of public policy, it is best crafted in statutory law, not by the courts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.