| This thesis examines the extent to which an exception to psychiatrist-patient confidentiality should be recognised to warn or protect third parties from dangerous psychiatric patients. In Part One, I discuss the existing Canadian jurisprudence and its implications for psychiatrist-patient confidentiality in Canada. In Part Two, I analyse the United States approach and the ramifications of the influential Tarasoff decision which imposes a tort law duty on psychiatrists to protect potential victims from dangerous patients. In Part Three, I consider the contrasting discretionary approach of the United Kingdom which affords psychiatrists discretion to warn potential victims. In Part Four, I suggest the proper limits of a Canadian exception to psychiatrist-patient confidentiality. |
