ABSTRACT
Daniel Shuman raises the important issue of therapeutic agendas in the law. Tort law has an implicit therapeutic agenda, for example, as do, more explicitly, child-custody laws; but it is not always possible for the l aw to pursue therapeutic goals to the full, partly because these may conflict with deeply entrenched normative values basic to the l aw or because there is more than one legitimate therapeutic interest at play. With these considerations in mind, Shuman examines three different forms that psychotherapist-patient privilege might take in common law, analyzing their advantages and disadvantages: privilege with no exceptions; privilege with categorical exceptions, such as child abuse; and the balancing model, which leaves the onus on the courts to adjudicate between competing therapeutic and legal interests. Each approach differs significantly with respect to decisions about setting the boundaries between private and public information, who will make them, their predictability, and their likely consistency. Shuman concludes with some reflections on the kinds of arguments used in favor of psychotherapy privilege and the need for more empirical evidence to support these arguments.
