Final answer:
The true statement according to the Tarasoff II ruling is that a therapist has a duty to warn the intended victim and the police when there is a reasonably identifiable victim of homicidal intent. This reflects a commitment to take reasonable steps to prevent harm, sometimes outweighing the duty to maintain confidentiality.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to the Tarasoff II ruling, statement number 2 is true, which specifies: When a patient admits to homicidal intent and there is a "reasonably identifiable victim," the therapist has a duty to warn the intended victim as well as the police. This decision builds on Tarasoff I, which originated the duty to warn. Tarasoff II clarifies that professionals have a duty not only to warn but also to take reasonable steps to protect the identifiable victim, which may involve notifying the police and other potential actions such as securing medications or hospitalization to prevent harm. The therapist's responsibility in such circumstances balances the patient's privacy rights against the need to prevent imminent harm to others.
Cases where moral and ethical obligations might conflict, such as preserving confidentiality versus preventing harm to others, require the therapist to exercise professional judgment. For instance, when faced with a possible harm to someone and the need to maintain professional ethical standards, professionals should prioritize preventing harm over maintaining confidentiality, reflecting the core ethical principle of 'do no harm' in the healthcare field. Similarly, when managing other ethical dilemmas, like the contradiction between telling the truth and avoiding harm, professionals must judge which duty presides based on the specific situation.