Dems want Colorado Red Flag Law

[Martinjmpr]

Re: Holmes, I was under the impression that if someone says they are going to harm themselves or others, there is no doc/patient priv?

Not quite. In some jurisdictions, a doctor is ALLOWED to break privilege if the doctor reasonably believes the patient is likely to harm someone. But the only circumstance where a doctor is REQUIRED to break the privilege and notify someone is if the patient expresses an intent to harm a SPECIFIC PERSON and in that case the duty is only to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. Tarasoff v. Regents of California. 551 P.2d 334 (1976.)

Note the word "allowed" in the above example though. Except for a very narrow exception in Tarasoff, there is no duty or legal requirement to notify. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any criminal or civil penalty that can be levied against a doctor who knows a patient is about to commit a crime and CHOOSES not to notify the authorities if the victim is not specifically identified.

Put more simply, if I tell my shrink "I'm going to murder Joe Schmoe who lives at 123 Fake Street in Springfield", Tarasoff requires that, at minimum, the shrink warn Joe Schmoe that I made threats against him.

But if I tell my shrink "I'm going to get a gun and kill as many random people as I can" there is, to my knowledge, no specific legal requirement that the shrink notify anyone.

Now, that may be wrong because I've been out of school for a long time, and it may be that there have since been some laws passed that require doctors, under some circumstances, to notify the authorities, I don't know. Doctors, like lawyers, have their own ethics boards that write Rules of Professional Conduct that govern what they may or may not disclose to the authorities and under what circumstances.

As I said, I think there are a lot of places where doctors are ALLOWED to break privilege, but there are very few (that I am aware of) where they are REQUIRED to do so.

[Great-Kazoo]

Not quite. In some jurisdictions, a doctor is ALLOWED to break privilege if the doctor reasonably believes the patient is likely to harm someone. But the only circumstance where a doctor is REQUIRED to break the privilege and notify someone is if the patient expresses an intent to harm a SPECIFIC PERSON and in that case the duty is only to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. Tarasoff v. Regents of California. 551 P.2d 334 (1976.)

Note the word "allowed" in the above example though. Except for a very narrow exception in Tarasoff, there is no duty or legal requirement to notify. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any criminal or civil penalty that can be levied against a doctor who knows a patient is about to commit a crime and CHOOSES not to notify the authorities if the victim is not specifically identified.

Put more simply, if I tell my shrink "I'm going to murder Joe Schmoe who lives at 123 Fake Street in Springfield", Tarasoff requires that, at minimum, the shrink warn Joe Schmoe that I made threats against him.

But if I tell my shrink "I'm going to get a gun and kill as many random people as I can" there is, to my knowledge, no specific legal requirement that the shrink notify anyone.

Now, that may be wrong because I've been out of school for a long time, and it may be that there have since been some laws passed that require doctors, under some circumstances, to notify the authorities, I don't know. Doctors, like lawyers, have their own ethics boards that write Rules of Professional Conduct that govern what they may or may not disclose to the authorities and under what circumstances.

As I said, I think there are a lot of places where doctors are ALLOWED to break privilege, but there are very few (that I am aware of) where they are REQUIRED to do so.

Holmes shrink did say she contacted local LE, or was going to but.............something more important distracted her. There was a lot of discussion on line and the media (the DP) questioning why she attempted to but never followed up based on her "concerns"