Amendment to Mental Health Providers
In Tennessee, a bill has been proposed that has provoked debate among mental health professionals.
If passed, the bill will expand reporting requirements for mental health providers beyond what is required at present.
According to Tennessee law today, mental health professionals are required to report where patients threaten specific individuals.
However, if enacted, the amendment would require medical specialists to report threats against groups of people as well.
Robin Weagley, Chief Executive Officer of Erlanger Behavioral Health in Chattanooga said that presently healthcare providers have an obligation to report and make warnings under certain conditions.
However, she found out that the current rule does not cover threats against groups of persons like day care centers, religious organizations or families with members suffering from mental diseases.
This suggested amendment which is in line with the Tennessee Code Annotated Section 33-3-206 aims at making it mandatory for mental health care providers to both report any unusual conduct by their patients not only to local law enforcements but also local crisis response services.
This amendment specifically addresses liability concerns by stating that no damages will be awarded against them, or any prosecution or disciplinary actions taken by a regulatory board; this provision is not contained in the existing law.
For now, these physicians must notify authorities when there “is a present threat of substantial bodily harm or death” (Tenn. Code Ann § 33-3-206).
But the new version extends this duty requiring those who have knowledge about someone with plans “to cause serious bodily harm” either on one individual with full control over his/her physical faculties or on many such individuals he/she can observe his/her intention on their faces.
Weagley believed that Erlanger’s mental health services and practices should remain largely intact despite potential enactment of the bill.
She envisages an opportunity for extensive dialogue and involvement throughout due process.
Conversely, North Carolina lacks such laws unlike Alabama which has some similar “duty to warn” laws like those of Tennessee. Georgia on the other hand has “duty to protect” after a patient is admitted.
This proposed bill marks an important moment in mental health law in Tennessee, bringing up questions about how the balance between patient privacy, public safety, and the ethical responsibilities of practitioners should be maintained.
Mental Health Providers’ Concerns and Considerations
The proposed amendment has led to lively debates among mental health providers across Tennessee regarding its potential impact.
Thus, while acknowledging that only threats specifically identified are reported, this amendment suggests a bigger mandate for reporting.
“We are always evaluating needs; risks; and ways of mitigating them through treatment and other means,” stated Robin Weagley, CEO of Erlanger Behavioral Health. However, she also revealed a lack of coverage for such threats as group related harm.
In particular, changing reporting requirement into one which involves intentionally causing harm against groups of individuals creates an ethical dilemma.
Additionally, the new indemnity clause introduced by this amendment provides another aspect to consider.
It also adds subjectivity to a complicated decision-making process when it requires that service provider must find out whether their client seems capable of carrying out the threat before reporting it.
Expected Impacts and Operational Considerations of Tennessee Bill
Weagley is confident that Erlanger’s mental health services will experience minimal disruption if the bill gets passed.
Therefore, she emphasized on the extensive dialogues and collaboration throughout the process.
However, concerns remain about what effects this bill may have on patient-provider relationships, confidentiality, and the delicate balance between protecting individuals and respecting their autonomy.
Many mental health professionals are therefore considering what this expanded reporting mandate might mean in terms of the therapeutic relationship and treatment dynamics.
Larger Legislative Landscape in Comparison to Other State Laws
Comparative analysis of the compliance with other neighboring states’ laws reveals some variations within mental health reporting laws.
Similarly, while Tennessee and Alabama have “duty to warn” laws in place; North Carolina does not have such legislation. It is interesting to see that Georgia only enforces “duty to protect” after hospitalization.
The ongoing debate concerning this amendment confirms how mental health reporting laws are incredibly complex and intersect with patient care, ethical codes of conduct for professionals involved in healthcare and public security issues.
As Tennessee goes through its legislative process for amending its policy affecting mental healthcare, stakeholders expect that it will involve all parties in an inclusive dialogue while at the same time balancing rights of patients with safety of communities.
