A psychiatrist who is being stalked may be able to assist a mentally ill stalker in a way that does not create a duty to treat and does not expose the psychiatrist to harm, such as contacting a mobile crisis intervention team, a mental health professional who recently treated the stalker, a family member of the stalker, or law enforcement personnel. A psychiatrist who is thrust from the role of helper to victim and must protect his or her own well-being instead of attending to a patient’s welfare is prone to suffer substantial countertransference distress.
The situation with Ms. I was particularly challenging because the resident did not know her complete history and therefore had little information to gauge how likely she was to act on her aggressive threats. Factors that predict future violence include:
- a history of violence
- significant prior criminality
- young age at first arrest
- concomitant substance abuse
- male sex.9
Unfortunately, other than sex, this data regarding Ms. I could not be readily obtained.
A psychiatrist’s duty
Although sympathetic to his stalker’s distress, the resident did not want to treat this woman, nor was he ethically or legally obligated to do so. An individual’s wish to be treated by a particular psychiatrist does not create a duty for the psychiatrist to satisfy this wish.10 State-based “Good Samaritan” laws encourage physicians to assist those in acute need by shielding them from liability, as long as they reasonably act within the scope of their expertise.11 However, they do not require a physician to care for an individual in acute need. A delusional wish for treatment or a false belief of already being in treatment does not create a duty to care for a person.
OUTCOME: Seeking help
Ms. I’s phone calls and letters continue. The resident discusses the situation with his associate residency director, who refers him to the hospital’s legal and investigative staffs. Based on advice from the hospital’s private investigator, the resident sends Ms. I a formal “cease and desist” letter that threatens her with legal action and possible jail time. The staff at the front desk of the clinic where the resident works and the hospital’s security department are instructed to watch for a visitor with Ms. I’s name and description, although the hospital’s investigator is unable to obtain a photograph of her. Shortly after the resident sends the letter, Ms. I ceases communication.
The authors’ observations
This case is unusual because most stalking victims know their stalkers. Identifying a stalker’s motivation can be helpful in formulating a risk assessment. One classification system recognizes 5 categories of stalkers: rejected, intimacy seeking, incompetent, resentful, and predatory (Table 2).1 Rejected stalkers appear to pose the greatest risk of violence and homicide.8 However, all stalkers may pose a risk of violence and therefore all stalking behavior should be treated seriously.
Table 2
Classification of stalkers
| Category | Common features |
|---|---|
| Rejected | Most have a personality disorder; often seeking reconciliation and revenge; most frequent victims are ex-romantic partners, but also target estranged relatives, former friends |
| Intimacy seeking | Erotomania; “morbid infatuation” |
| Incompetent | Lacking social skills; often have stalked others |
| Resentful | Pursuing a vendetta; generally feeling aggrieved |
| Predatory | Often comorbid with paraphilias; may have past convictions for sex offenses |
| Source: Adapted from reference 1 | |
Responding to a stalker
The approach should be tailored to the stalker’s characteristics.12 Silence—ie, lack of acknowledgement of a stalker’s intrusions—is one tactic.13 Consistent and persistent lack of engagement may bore the stalker, but also may provoke frustration or narcissistic or paranoia-fueled rage, and increased efforts to interact with the mental health professional. Other responses include:
- obtaining a protection or restraining order
- promoting the stalker’s participation in adversarial civil litigation, such as a lawsuit
- issuing verbal counterthreats.
Restraining orders are controversial and assessments of their effectiveness vary.14 How well a restraining order works may depend on the stalker’s:
- ability to appreciate reality, and how likely he or she is to experience anxiety when confronted with adverse consequences of his or her actions
- how consistently, rapidly, and harshly the criminal justice system responds to violations of restraining orders.
Restraining orders also may provide the victim a false sense of security.15 One of her letters revealed that Ms. I violated a criminal plea arrangement years earlier, which suggests she was capable of violating a restraining order.
Litigation. A stalker may initiate civil litigation against the victim to feel that he or she has an impact on the victim, which may reduce the stalker’s risk of violence if he or she is emotionally engaged in the litigation. Based on the authors’ experience, as long as the stalker is talking, he or she generally is less likely to act out violently and terminate a satisfying process. Adversarial civil litigation could give a stalker the opportunity to be “close” to the victim and a means of expressing aggressive wishes. The benefit of litigation lasts only as long as the case persists and the stalker believes he or she may prevail. In one of her letters, Ms. I bragged that she had represented herself as a pro se litigant in a complex civil matter, suggesting that she might be constructively channeled into litigation.