Bierenbaum Implications

Psychiatrists will applaud the landmark ruling by the New York State Supreme Court trial judge in the case of People v. Robert Bierenbaum (Psychiatric News, October 20, 2000). The decision declared that giving a Tarasoff warning does not permanently abrogate the physician-patient privilege. Thus, for example, as in this case, a treating psychiatrist would not be permitted to testify for the prosecution merely because a warning had been given to an intended victim.

The ruling also held that patient-authorized conversations with family members, where the conversations are necessary to further the objectives for which the patient sought professional assistance, likewise do not vitiate the physician-patient privilege.

I understand that the trial judge in reaching his decision relied heavily on the amicus curiae brief submitted jointly by the New York State Psychiatric Association and the American Psychoanalytic Association. The brief was written by Seth Stein, J.D., NYSPA’s executive director. Patients and their psychotherapists alike owe Mr. Stein a great debt of gratitude.