Elements involved in professional ethics.

Ethical problem -
Ethics

Case: "Tatiana Tarasoff"
Subject: Confidentiality (secrecy)
Case decided in the year 1976 by the Supreme Court of the United States.

A psychiatrist is sued by the parents of Tatiana Tarasoff, a young woman killed by a psychopath and one patient who had confided his intentions towards the victim. Prosenjit Poddar, who was under psychiatric treatment by Dr. Lawrence Moore, the Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California (Berkeley), he revealed his intention to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. The psychiatrist warned
campus police to the purpose of his patient and Poddar was arrested, but was freed shortly after their appearance in response to "normal". The psychiatrist tried to hospitalize the patient, but did not inform the young the danger she ran. Subsequently, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana. The parents of the victim seeking compensation based on the negligence of the doctor. The California Supreme Court upheld the claim considering that the psychiatrist had a special duty to take all necessary measures to avoid the danger of the patient (called the police but did not deplete all necessary measures that were within its power to prevent the assassination, breach, therefore due diligence as optional). The imminent danger was so obvious based on a judgment of the Court predictability gave prominence to the public interest against the privileges of secrecy psychiatrist and patient privacy.

The justice court was divided into two contrasting positions. The majority opinion psychiatrist guilty of professional negligence, claiming that the obligation to protect people from violent attacks exceeds the ethical rule of confidentiality, and in such cases should be advised directly or
indirectly to the individual involved. The minority opinion, however, defended the conduct of the psychiatrist as a protector of the rights of patients to not violate professional secrecy. In addition, relying on arguments therefore emphasizes the advantage to the public good to maintain strict confidentiality of psychiatric information. Non-observance of the rule would frustrate psychiatric treatment, losing confidence and away from the same patients, thus increasing instead of decreasing, the danger of violent attacks. Even if all the people making threats intern, society would be injured as those few who have a real risk of violence, while the most innocuous, once admitted, may not have the benefit of psychotherapeutic treatment.


Answer:

• Why Tatiana Tarasoff case is considered an ethical problem?
It is considered an ethical problem because it involves decisions that have consequences for other people and that the choice between doing and stop making an impact on the lives of others.



• Do you think that the doctor you managed under professional ethics? Why?
Well first to answer this question it is necessary to know the ethical code of a psychiatrist, understanding that should keep the right to confidentiality with the patient, but also has a duty to alert the relevant authorities if the situation with possible attacks violent, which is what made the police approached attesting to what was happening, so the act professionally. Why not alerted the victim? Possibly the police told him that was not necessary, since the attacker appeared to be a normal person, imagine that in the police station another Psychiatrist assessed the detainee and it was he who gave the diagnosis so they could be released, so both moral and social responsibility would then fall on the police., who also mediates justice informed the victim or their family of the danger he was. Yes, the psychiatrist was handled in a professional manner ... the police did not.


• What do you consider were the principles that a professional doctor did not take into account?
I think the act was to correctly policiía who in their role as protector of order did not fulfill its function, or their professional duties, the psychiatrist may have warned the victim, but this ... she still be alive? . Sure although she was warned that his life would depend on the police to protect her, especially with prior knowledge of the intentions of Prosenjit Poddar.


Ethical Implications:
Dentología -. Act correctly as stipulated in the code of ethics of the profession, in this case the right of confidentiality Vs possible risk of death.
Principle of confidentiality -. Necessary rape, since in this case the professional duty invites the health of people, whether or not their patients.



Moral rights -. Might have the moral right to adhere to professional duties and the right to confidentiality of patients.
Professional Duties -.'s A professional duty alert if it detects possible violent attacks.

Principles and Justification.
Describe and justify the principles in accordance with the Professional purpose.
The purpose of a professional psychiatrist is the mental health of an individual, and healthy living with the people around this individual, ensuring the health psychiatrist warned of attack "Tatiana Tarassof" violating the right of privacy, was the police who had no professional ethics to see the health and life of Tatiana Tarassof.

Conclusion:
I think the psychiatrist acted morally right. He did what was in his hands, warn of violent behavior and intentions of murder.

I get these questions in the air:
If the psychiatrist had warned Tatiana, she would be alive?

Prosenjit Poddar was released after alert your psychiatrist, was not examined by a psychiatrist at police before being released?
It was the police who did not comply with the duty of protecting their basic and primary duty, and compensation to the family must have paid the government, since neither the police notified of the danger Tatiana ..