{"title":"警告/保护义务原则及其在宾夕法尼亚州的适用","authors":"C. Watson","doi":"10.29046/JJP.019.1.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the almost universal familiarity of mental health professionals with the Tarasoff case, many questions regarding its associated legal requirements often arise when evaluating potentially dangerous patients. The principles of the duty to warn/protect, while appearing nebulous at times, contain key concepts that the clinician must consider in the face of potential danger to third parties. This article reviews the landmark decision of the Tarasoff case and outlines its key concepts. In addition, given that state jurisdictions vary in treatment of Tarasoff-like cases, this article explores the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc.","PeriodicalId":14750,"journal":{"name":"Japanese journal of pharmacology","volume":"263 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Duty to Warn/Protect Doctrine and Its Application in Pennsylvania\",\"authors\":\"C. Watson\",\"doi\":\"10.29046/JJP.019.1.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the almost universal familiarity of mental health professionals with the Tarasoff case, many questions regarding its associated legal requirements often arise when evaluating potentially dangerous patients. The principles of the duty to warn/protect, while appearing nebulous at times, contain key concepts that the clinician must consider in the face of potential danger to third parties. This article reviews the landmark decision of the Tarasoff case and outlines its key concepts. In addition, given that state jurisdictions vary in treatment of Tarasoff-like cases, this article explores the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Japanese journal of pharmacology\",\"volume\":\"263 1\",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Japanese journal of pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29046/JJP.019.1.002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese journal of pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29046/JJP.019.1.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Duty to Warn/Protect Doctrine and Its Application in Pennsylvania
Despite the almost universal familiarity of mental health professionals with the Tarasoff case, many questions regarding its associated legal requirements often arise when evaluating potentially dangerous patients. The principles of the duty to warn/protect, while appearing nebulous at times, contain key concepts that the clinician must consider in the face of potential danger to third parties. This article reviews the landmark decision of the Tarasoff case and outlines its key concepts. In addition, given that state jurisdictions vary in treatment of Tarasoff-like cases, this article explores the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
