Offers a brief history of duty-to-protect statutes, which limit the liability of psychotherapists who treat life-endangering outpatients and protect therapists who make good-faith warnings when danger to identifiable victims is predictable. Fears are discussed that surround the possibility that courts will continue to expand the Tarasoff (1976) decision beyond its original parameters. Current statutory remedies to problems related to the Tarasoff decision are discussed, and the intent of duty-to-protect laws is examined. Alternative wording to these statutes is offered.