You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In the fall of 2019, a much-publicized court case brought to national attention the issues of patient-doctor confidentiality when it comes to reporting the deaths of newborns in the United States. It is unclear whether the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade will lead to more cases like this. This article discusses issues of countertransference, as well as the ethical and legal implications were it to be a psychiatrist, in active treatment of such a patient, who would be required to make such a report. More specifically, as in the publicized court case, the patient could be a minor at the time, receiving treatment from a child psychiatrist. The implications of such a case include how countertransference affects the perception of fatal child neglect compared to intentional neonaticide; the ethical dilemma of generating a mandated report with the goal of child safety when such a report could lead to real legal consequences for a minor child; and considerations regarding continued treatment of a patient after such a report is made. It is likely that countertransference, shaped by attitudes toward mothers and idealized views on mothering, may play a large role in all these circumstances.