Case #1, Tarasoff v. The Regents of California, how the psychologist did everything right, was sued and lost the case.
Case #2, Almonte v. New York Medical College, how the psychiatrist did everything right, was sued and lost the case.
Case #3, Garner v. Stone, how the psychologist carefully read Tarasoff and Almonte, did everything right, was sued and STILL lost the case.
AKK! The book actually states, and I quote (obviously):
Perhaps there is a moral for mental health practitioners in these latter cases: Sometimes even professionals who go to extreme lengths to protect the rights of society and their clients do not win, which is why they should be well insured
Wondering why we don't have a course dedicated to choosing the best kind of insurance...
4 comments:
Well that certainly doesn't leave you with a happy go lucky feeling huh? Yikes.
Now you have me quite frightened :)
LOL! I've decided banking for health insurance to cover Swine Flu is probably more pragmatic. ;p
Since I'm in forensics though, I worry a fair amount about this. I watched my dad struggle through two law suits as an OB/GYN and it was sheer hell. It seems sometimes that expert witnesses are wasted on juries and jury selection strips away any chance of having a person who might understand any of what is said anyway. All these precedents and case law seem to be for naught if the jury gets a unanimous hair up it's butt...
MH law is some of the screwier case law out there. It is frustrating to so often have to choose between Personal Ethics, Professional Ethics, and the Law.....as they often are three different things.
Post a Comment