I said &#x27;duty of care&#x27;, not &#x27;law&#x27;. If you <i>credibly</i> threaten the practitioner or third parties, then <i>morality</i> most definitely says you should protect those people from harm. I mean seriously, make the moral comparison: break someone&#x27;s trust or let someone get maimed or die.<p>To put it bluntly, it&#x27;s stupid to demand a practitioner <i>ignore credible threats</i> (stress <i>credible</i>) against their own life, in favour of some weirdly puritan moral theory. Practitioners are people too, with their own lives, loves, and foibles... and, frequently, their own mental illnesses. They&#x27;re not any more disposable than the patients they treat. Just because you&#x27;re interested in helping someone doesn&#x27;t mean that you commit to do so even unto your own death.<p>&gt; <i>If someone said &quot;you can trust me, except for this laundry list of things you can say in which case I&#x27;ll have you locked in a cage and force you to take medication against your will&quot; would you trust them?</i><p>Psychologists can&#x27;t prescribe medicine or force detention - you&#x27;re tilting at a windmill here. Psychiatrists can do both, though with some limitations on how they can detain. Similarly, credible threats are hardly a &#x27;laundry list&#x27;.