Real-Life Vignettes Involving the Duty to Protect

Abstract The Tarasoff decision established a “duty to protect” for psychotherapists in California who treat patients who present an imminent danger of substantial physical harm to an identifiable person or persons. Subsequent court cases and legislation in other states, as well as recommendations from mental health experts, have led to the widespread acceptance of the duty to protect. This article will evaluate real life duty to protect situations according to three common dilemmas faced by psychotherapists. The authors make recommendations as to appropriate actions.