Confidentiality and Tarasoff

I am seeking legal/ethical input for a colleague who works in a prison setting. She has a client that is due for release back into the community within the next six months. She must make a recommendation to the commitment board asessing his dangerousness. Two weeks ago a victim services group coontacted the therapist and said that the prisoner's estranged wife had been receiving threats of violence from the prisoner and that she believed that she was in imminent danger if he were released to the community. However, the victim services group went on to state that the woman's name could not be mentioned nor any of the specific threats conveyed to anyone else. It was explained that this would severely hamper any commitment procedure. The victim services representative was adament and threatened legal action if any information was used. Without the inclusion of these threats there is very little chance of proving sufficient dangerousness to support commitment.

What is the prevailing arguement? Does the therapist have an obligation of confidentialty in regard to the estranged wife whom she never had a relationship with? If so, does that duty to warn, and take steps to prevent harm, override this obligation? In reviewing the prisoner's criminal record and learning of the threats there is clearly a real danger of serious violence. What is the best advice for my colleague?

• Please reply to the OTHER copy of the Woodlock message. by William Reid, 1/4/99