HUSS235-Critical Errors-Devin Sloan

docx

School

Bryant & Stratton College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

J-HUSS2350

Subject

Sociology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by brownsugah31

Report
1 Critical Errors Devin Sloan Bryant & Stratton College HUSS 235 Instructor J. Cheever November 27, 2023
2 In the landmark case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, mental health practitioners were required by law to alert prospective victims when a patient posed a serious risk of violence. The case included Prosenjit Poddar, a college student, who had threatened to hurt Tatiana Tarasoff. Poddar had been going to Dr. Lawrence Moore, a university psychologist, and during one of their treatment sessions, Poddar revealed his plan to murder Tarasoff. Dr. Moore made the decision to temporarily hold Poddar without informing Tarasoff or her family. After being freed, Poddar finally carried out the threat, which is how Tarasoff died. Critical errors in the Tarasoff case: 1) Not Warning: Tatiana Tarasoff and her family may have taken preventative action if Dr. Moore had told them about the specific harm posed by Poddar. 2) Insufficient Evaluation: Dr. Moore failed to evaluate Poddar's threat seriously enough. A different course of action, like hospitalization or involving law law enforcement, might have resulted from a more comprehensive review. 3) Inadequate Coordination: The cooperation and communication between law enforcement and mental health specialists was lacking. Working together may have made sure that the matter was thoroughly assessed and that the right course of action was taken. 4) Cultural Competence: Given that Poddar was a foreign student, cultural considerations were present in this situation. Accurately assessing the risk and choosing the best course of action may have required an understanding of and attention to cultural differences. 5) Ambiguity in the law: The case made evident the necessity for more precise legal standards pertaining to the warning obligation. It's possible that mental health practitioners were unaware of their legal responsibilities, which delayed taking proper and prompt action.
3 How the situation may have been avoided: 1) Clearer Legal Standards: Mental health practitioners may have made better decisions if there had been more clarity in the law on their obligation to alert and shield prospective victims. 2) Better Interaction and Cooperation: Improving the level of communication and cooperation among mental health providers, law enforcement, and other appropriate parties could have enabled a more thorough evaluation of the threat and suitable remediation. 3) Training in Cultural Competence: Cultural competence training could aid mental health practitioners in better comprehending and addressing cultural aspects that could influence risk assessments. 4) Consultation and supervision on a regular basis: Regular supervision and consultation among mental health experts may assist in ensuring that complex situations are thoroughly reviewed, and decisions are made with the input of experienced colleagues. 5) Record-keeping and Documentation: Encouraging comprehensive documenting of evaluations of threats, actions, and choices could enhance accountability and offer a more transparent record of the decision-making procedure.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help