Abstract:
This essay outlines and critically analyses various jurisdictions’ stance on the imposition of a duty to warn in the psychiatric context. Specifically, the essay presents and compares case law from California, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand on this issue with a view of identifying the pros and cons of the imposition of a duty to warn. In drawing on these cases the essay will then argue that the imposition of a general duty to warn on psychiatrists should be resisted in New Zealand. Lastly, the essay tentatively suggests that the imposition of a more restricted duty to warn may be a viable possibility in terms of striking a balance between the public interest in maintaining doctor-patient confidentiality and the public interest in keeping the general public safe from foreseeable and preventable violent acts.
