dc.contributor.author |
Hoffmann, Joschka |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2013-04-03T00:25:08Z |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2022-11-02T03:26:44Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2013-04-03T00:25:08Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2022-11-02T03:26:44Z |
|
dc.date.copyright |
2012 |
|
dc.date.issued |
2012 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/28685 |
|
dc.description.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. |
en_NZ |
dc.format |
pdf |
en_NZ |
dc.language |
en_NZ |
|
dc.language.iso |
en_NZ |
|
dc.publisher |
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington |
en_NZ |
dc.subject |
Duty to warn |
en_NZ |
dc.subject |
Mental health personnel |
en_NZ |
dc.title |
Comparative Approaches to the Problem of a Duty to Warn in the Psychiatric Context |
en_NZ |
dc.type |
Text |
en_NZ |
vuwschema.contributor.unit |
School of Law |
en_NZ |
vuwschema.subject.marsden |
390199 Law not elsewhere classified |
en_NZ |
vuwschema.type.vuw |
Masters Research Paper or Project |
en_NZ |
thesis.degree.discipline |
Law |
en_NZ |
thesis.degree.grantor |
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington |
en_NZ |
thesis.degree.level |
Masters |
en_NZ |
thesis.degree.name |
Master of Law |
en_NZ |