What legal decision allows for breaching confidentiality if a patient intends to harm someone?

The principle that allows for breaching confidentiality in situations where a patient may intend to harm someone is known as Duty to Warn. This legal and ethical concept stems from the landmark case Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, where it was determined that mental health professionals have an obligation to warn potential victims of imminent threats posed by their patients. The duty arises when a therapist has a reasonable belief that a patient poses a risk to an identifiable individual or is planning to commit a violent act.

In these cases, confidentiality, which is a vital component of the therapeutic relationship, is overridden by the obligation to protect the safety of others. This principle underscores the balance between patient confidentiality and public safety, ensuring that mental health professionals can take necessary actions to prevent harm when there is a credible threat.

The other choices—patient autonomy, mandatory reporting, and informed consent—relate to different aspects of patient care and communication but do not specifically address the situation where legal breaches of confidentiality are warranted based on a threat of harm to others. Patient autonomy emphasizes the right of individuals to make their own treatment decisions, mandatory reporting refers to the obligation to report certain information like abuse, and informed consent involves making sure patients are fully aware of and agree to the treatment process.