In late December 1974, the Cailfornia Supreme Court considerably broadened a physician's duty to disclose Information gained in the course of treatment by enunclating the following rule: “When a doctor or a psychotherapist, in the exercise of his professional skill and knowledge, determines, or should determine, that a warning is essential to avert danger arising from the medical or psychological condifion of his patient. he incurs a legal obligation to give that warning.” (emphasis mine)

Prior to this case most lawyers would probably have assumed that such a “legal obligation” would have only been imposed by statute. such as contagious disease, child abuse and gunshot wound reporting statutes, and that giving of such warnings in the absence of a specific statute mandating reporting or warning was optional with the physician. While this case involved a psychologist, and is most relevant to psychlatric care, the broad language used by the court makes it clear that, in California at least. Its conclusions apply to all types of physicians. Because of its broad implications. It is worth taking a careful look at the facts which prompted the court to enunciate this expansive rule.

Two years and 25 days following United States Supreme Court's controversial decision on abortion, a Massachusetts Superior Court jury of nine men and three women handed down an historic decision of their own against a Boston physician accused of manslaughter in connection with an abortion he performed on a 17 year old girl.

And so on February 15, 1975, 36 year old Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin, Coordinator of Ambulatory Care in OB/GYN at Boston City Hospital, was found gullty as charged: