Boundary and Reporting Obligations When a Patient Discloses a Planned Harm
Dr. S is a forensic psychiatrist who has been treating Mr. A, a 29-year-old man with schizophrenia, in an outpatient clinic for eight months. Mr. A has been stable on clozapine with good adherence. In session, he discloses that he has been researching his former employer, whom he believes 'ruined his life,' has purchased a firearm, and has been driving past the employer's home. He says, 'I'm not going to hurt anyone - I just want him to know I could.' He refuses to discuss it further, declines voluntary hospitalization, and says, 'If you tell anyone, I'll never trust a doctor again.' He does not meet criteria for imminent danger on structured assessment, but the risk is not trivial. Dr. S also serves on the county's threat-assessment panel, which is sometimes consulted in such cases.
1. What are Dr. S's obligations, and how does the treating role affect them?
Read the worked answer
This is a treating-clinician situation, not a forensic one, and the duties flow from that role.
- Assess and document risk using structured methods (e.g., HCR-20 or similar), including the specific target, means (firearm), proximity behavior (driving past the home), and protective factors. 'I just want him to know I could' is a threat-adjacent statement that requires careful analysis, not dismissal.
- Consider the Tarasoff-type duty under the governing state law: whether there is a duty to protect (warn the identifiable victim, notify law enforcement, or take other protective steps) depends on the jurisdiction's statute and case law. The examiner must know the applicable rule; the duty is generally triggered by an identifiable victim and a serious threat, not by imminent dangerousness alone.
- Least-restrictive effective intervention: explore voluntary measures, safety planning, involvement of family, medication review, and possible voluntary or involuntary evaluation under the state's criteria. Firearm access is a specific, modifiable risk factor to address.
- Confidentiality is not absolute; the patient should be told, ideally in advance, what the limits are and what will be done. His statement about trust is important therapeutically but does not override a legal duty to protect.
- Do not use the threat-assessment panel role as a shortcut. Serving on a panel does not convert a treating relationship into a forensic one, and Dr. S should not invoke panel resources in a way that blurs roles or bypasses the patient's rights.
2. If Dr. S is later asked by the panel to evaluate Mr. A, what should he do?
Read the worked answer
He should decline the panel evaluation of his own patient. Reasons:
- It would create a dual role: treating psychiatrist and forensic evaluator of the same person, with incompatible obligations and a compromised appearance of objectivity.
- The panel's work product may be used in proceedings adverse to the patient, and the patient's trust in treatment would be damaged.
- The proper course is to refer the panel evaluation to an independent examiner and, if appropriate, provide factual treatment information through the legally proper channel with the patient's authorization or as required by law.
If he is compelled to participate, he should document the conflict, limit his contribution to factual treatment information, and state clearly that he is not offering a forensic opinion.