Your active participation in the weekly Discussion is important to the shared learning experience. Active discussion also develops our community of budding counselors, therapists, and researchers. Please participate as early in the week as possible, and be sure to share your thoughts and ideas as often as you can throughout the unit.
Respond to the thread. Your original response should be at least 350 words and should reflect the fact that you have completed the assigned readings for the week. Remember, this is your chance to illustrate not only your understanding, but also your mastery of the materials for the unit. Use your words wisely so the posting has substance and includes examples and explanations. Limit the use of direct quotes, and do your best to critically evaluate and synthesize the literature in your own words wherever possible. Make sure to include in-text citations and a reference list as appropriate.
Media Portrayal (1 of 2)
The media often cover cases in which the assessment of psychopathology is relevant. Pick a particular case that has obtained attention in the media in which a psychiatrist and/or psychologist was involved in assessing the individual (please check the Discussion Board and do not duplicate cases).
Discuss the following, including source material/citations as appropriate:
1. What were the differences in the media portrayal and the information we learned in this unit?
2. If you were able to access the psychiatric and/or psychological reports or conclusions, what were the major questions and issues in the assessment?
3. If you were not able to access this material, based on the information in this unit, what would be the major assessment questions at issue?
Duty to Warn (2 of 2)
In 1976, the Supreme Court of California ruled on a case that became precedent for many “duty to warn” state statutes.
Prosenjit Poddar was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley. He dated for a time a young woman named Tatiana Tarasoff. It was later established that Ms. Tarasoff may not have felt as serious about the relationship as Mr. Poddar did. Mr. Poddar is reported to have then sought assistance with some feelings of depression at the University Health Service with a Dr. Moore. During the course of therapy, Mr. Poddar conveyed to Dr. Moore that he intended to obtain a gun and shoot Ms. Tarasoff.
Dr. Moore sent a letter to the University of California-Berkeley police requesting that Mr. Poddar be detained and screened for psychiatric inpatient hospital admission. The police were reported to have interviewed Mr. Poddar and to have determined that he was not dangerous.
Some time later, Ms. Tarasoff returned from a visit out of the country, at which time Mr. Poddar was reported to have stalked and killed her.
The Supreme Court of California later ruled that Dr. Moore had a duty to warn the potentially endangered Ms. Tarasoff, which took legal precedence over the legal issues of therapist/client privilege and the ethic of therapist/client confidentiality.
Locate an additional reference regarding Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California, and address the following questions:
1. What would be minimally required for an appropriate assessment today in reference to the above case?
2. What specific information/data would be minimally acceptable for a thorough assessment in this case?
3. What would an evaluator need to know regarding issues about Mr. Poddar’s competence to stand trial for this offense?
4. What would an evaluator need to know regarding issues about Mr. Poddar’s sanity/insanity at the time of the offense?
