{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014248704663212436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.6068376068376065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The normative and conceptual foundations of a clinical duty to protect.

The continuing controversy surrounding the Tarasoff inspired duty to protect as developed by the courts and legislatures has not adequately weighed the jurisprudential foundations of such an obligation. The authors argue that the duty's misguided thrust of social control grounded in character and status seriously violates broad principles of political morality underlying the law of social control. They conceptualize an alternative--a clinical duty to protect--that coheres with these underlying values and the limits of professional abilities. They contend that any extra-clinical intervention on the part of the psychotherapist entails a role transformation requiring independent justification.