This Note takes an in-depth look at standing and, specifically, the extent to which increased risk of exposure to toxins caused by a government agency's regulations constitutes a judicially cognizable injury-in-fact. Despite over a century of case law on the topic, standing doctrine remains in flux and ill defined, largely due to the constantly changing ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. The lower courts are divided on the question of whether increased risk of future harm constitutes an injury-in-fact. Using Baur v. Veneman as a case study, this Note argues for the expansion of the definition of injury-in-fact to include potential future injuries that result from a specific government policy.
State laws modeled on Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California require psychotherapists to warn potential victims or law enforcement when treating dangerous patients who make serious threats of harm to another person. In practice, many psychotherapists advise their patients who make such threats about their duty under these Tarasoff-model laws. Although they are not required to make these advisories by law, psychotherapists generally assume that they also have a concomitant ethical duty to advise their patients that such threats will not be kept confidential, as their communications normally would be. This Note looks at how these advisories affect the status of privilege for subsequent threatening statements relayed to a psychotherapist. It explores the opposing views in the federal circuit courts regarding whether such an advisory precludes the existence of privilege for subsequent statements, or whether the advisory operates as a waiver to the privilege. This Note argues that threats communicated to a psychotherapist after an advisory about a psychotherapist's Tarasoff duty cannot be considered privileged if the patient intended for the threat to be passed on to a third party. Psychotherapists must now be aware of the possible legal consequences regarding the patients' diminished expectation of confidentiality and lack of privilege following such advisories. In order to act in their patients' best interest, psychotherapists should educate themselves about the scope of a Tarasoff duty in their applicable states and should consider alternative intervention techniques that could reduce dangerous patients' risk of harm. Psychotherapists should continue to follow professional ethical guidelines about advising patients of the limits of confidentiality, but implement techniques that evidence the patients' true intent about confidentiality, in order to bolster the patients' possible privilege claims later on and minimize harm to the treatment relationship.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：