[Mr. K]

Doctor-patient priveledgse should not extend to the point where a patient is in danger of killing others. But it has to be THE DOCTOR who is smart enough to know.

She could have had him involuntarily committed as a danger to himself or others. I am not even a doctor and I had it done to my brother

This is not like a confessional and priest - which IS sacred. But even a priest can point out who is dangerous to the police without reveling what was said.

[plain talk]

“Involuntarily committed”?

In recent months I have heard many professionals on various talk shows describe how hard it is to get someone committed. The liberals have screwed that up to the point where it is almost impossible until violent crimes are committed. They can hold them for a day or so then have to release them. We can thank the liberals for this problem as well as the homeless problem.

[Mamzelle]

So you had someone involuntarily committed, and it was really easy? Was this recently?

[hinckley buzzard]

This issue is covered by law (Tarasoff) and in this case given what we know so far, it does not rise to the level of "Duty to Warn" on the part of the doctor. If the police had wanted to they could have committed Holmes for psych evaluation on their own authority. But they didn't. "Doctor-patient privilege" is the same as lawyer-client privilege and the requirements for violating that privilege are specific and strict. They didn't happen here.