This is whether they should inform potential third parties of possible harmful behavior (Bartol & Bartol 2014, Merkel 1993). This has also been evident in the past, through the Tarasoff case where it was ultimately concluded that the therapist has a duty to take measures to protect potential individuals from harm (Bartol & Bartol 2014). As Rosie Batty had said in her statement the day after her son's murder, there is only so much victims can do to protect themselves, "an intervention order does nothing to stop something like this happening" ( Thompson & McGregor 2014 ). To protect Rosie and Luke in this situation, I believe it would have been appropriate to inform her of the numerous death threats made by Anderson and the number of charges and arrests made against him (including child pornography). For me this raised the still unresolved dilemma of what duty these individuals have in their work. Although one particular case was resolved, Tarasoff v. Regents 1974, this answer does not apply to everyone. However, in saying this, I believe this greatly disadvantaged the Battys as victims, as they had very little awareness of the danger they would be exposed to. As someone who is very close to their siblings, it sickens me to think that they might be oblivious to the harm