Duty to Warn Ideology: The Doctor-Patient Confidentiality

Duty to Warn
There are many ethical practices that are advocated for in every profession in the world. These ethics are supposed to promote integrity and also ensure that the profession in question does not violate the rights of any of the parties that might get involved in it. The most common example that almost everyone in the world is conversant with is “the doctor-patient confidentiality”. Other professions also have their own codes of ethics, which are supposed to safeguard the interest of the parties involved without violating an individual’s liberties. However, there have been numerous scenarios that make doctors and other professions feel the need of sharing information of use to other parties (Stone 1985). This is more so when it comes to the welfare of a patient or other intended victims. This research paper writes for the “duty to warn” ideology.
The Tarasoff case showed the need of warning authorities on potentially dangerous personnel, although the case brought about controversy on doctor-patient confidentiality. The case involved two students from the University of California, Berkley in 1969. This was after a male student, Prosenjit Poddar murdered with a kitchen knife. The two had met in a folk dancing class a year earlier, and they ended up sharing a kiss on New Years Eve of 1969. This kiss convinced Poddar that they were in a serious relationship, but when Tarasoff informed him that they were not and indeed she was going out with other men, he swore to kill her (Walcott et al, 2001). He had even told a friend of his he intended to blow her up in her room. On top of that he neglected his health and his studies out of depression. His friend managed to convince him to go to therapy, and he started seeing Dr. Moore, ...

... middle of paper ...

... of the majority should always be protected if an individual poses health, or other kinds of danger to more lives other than his/her own.
This is the same perspective being advocate for in the “duty to warn” ideology. Doctors have a duty to warn the responsible bodies on potential victims. In fact, after California adopted this directive other states went ahead to adopt the idea, although South Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Texas continue to reject it.
References
Rosner, F. (2007). Contemporary biomedical ethical issues and Jewish law. Jersey City, N.J: KTAV Pub. House.
Walcott, D. Cerundolo, P. Beck, J.C. & Allan, F. (2001). Current analysis of the Tarasoff duty: An evolution towards the limitation of the duty to protect. Behavioral Science and the Law. 19 (3): 325-343.
Stone, A. A. (1985). Law, psychiatry & morality: Essays & analysis. S.l.: Amer Psychiatric.