On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:46:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



The question is, what can or should be done
about it? Require any healthcare provider to
report all their patients receiving mental health
treatment? Require them to report
the ones they think MIGHT be dangerous?
There are obviously huge problems with
the latter too, like what is enough to constitute
them being reported?

When is it OK to breech their privacy? Isn't that a primary goal of statists?
Is it an obligation? Will shrinks be liable if one of their clients goes
"postal"? Why would anyone become a shrink, with those liabilities?

That is why I always get a giggle out of people stating we can keep
guns from the mentally ill. At least since the 80s, the privacy
protections for mental health related issues have been much more
stringent than even regular health records. Court records too are
generally sealed.
Shrinks are already required to report direct threats to the
potential victim under the finding of the Tarasoff case in CA. In
Aurora, unless the shooter had said specifically he was going to shoot
up the movie theatre, the doc's hands were tied.

AIUI, in the Aurora case, the shrink *did* report the threat. It was never
stated that she(?) illegally disclosed patient information, though.