Ewing v. Goldstein expanded Tarasoff by clarifying duty to protect when threats are communicated by whom?

Unlock all questions

This demo includes only 20 questions. Upgrade to access hundreds of questions, flashcards, exam simulations, and disable ads.

Full question bankExam simulationsFlashcards
From $24.99Unlock all

Study for the California WIC 5150 Test with our flashcards and multiple choice questions. Each question includes hints and explanations to prepare you thoroughly for your exam!

Multiple Choice

Ewing v. Goldstein expanded Tarasoff by clarifying duty to protect when threats are communicated by whom?

Explanation:
The key idea is that the duty to protect can be triggered not only by a direct threat from the patient, but also when someone close to the patient conveys the threat. Ewing v. Goldstein clarified that information about dangerousness coming from a trusted third party can create liability for the clinician to take protective action. A family member is a prime example of such a close, reliable informant, so threats communicated by a family member meet the standard for activating the duty to protect.

The key idea is that the duty to protect can be triggered not only by a direct threat from the patient, but also when someone close to the patient conveys the threat. Ewing v. Goldstein clarified that information about dangerousness coming from a trusted third party can create liability for the clinician to take protective action. A family member is a prime example of such a close, reliable informant, so threats communicated by a family member meet the standard for activating the duty to protect.

More Multiple Choice Questions
Subscribe

Get the latest from Examzify

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy