The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
-
J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law · Jan 2006
Back to the past in California: a temporary retreat to a Tarasoff duty to warn.
The original Tarasoff decision created a duty for California psychotherapists to warn potential victims of their patients. After rehearing the matter two years later, the California Supreme Court, in the landmark second Tarasoff decision, changed the duty to warn to a duty to protect potential victims, with warning as only one of the options for discharging that duty. ⋯ This misunderstanding and an ambiguous California immunity statute culminated in "simplified" jury instructions and two appellate court decisions in 2004 in which it was assumed without question that there was a duty to warn, with liability for not doing so regardless of rationale. As a result of persistent lobbying by the California Psychiatric Association and other mental health groups, a recent bill corrected the problem created by the courts, returning the Tarasoff duty to a duty to protect.
-
J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law · Jan 2006
Competency for creation, use, and revocation of psychiatric advance directives.
Psychiatric advance directives help promote patient involvement in treatment and expedite psychiatric care. However, clinicians are unsure of how to use directives, partly due to poor clarity regarding standards for capacity to create, use, and revoke them. This article recommends possible capacity standards. ⋯ In many states, revocation of a psychiatric advance directive requires adequate decision-making capacity. Setting a capacity standard for revocation presents challenges, however, in light of obstacles to providing treatment when revocation is attempted and the fact that many patients prefer revocable directives. As more directives are created and used, additional research and statutory refinements are warranted.