"The amicus position suggests that awareness of the decision will discourage therapists from treating dangerous patients. Furthermore, traditional notions of deterrence suggest that the aversion should be greatest among those who believe themselves legally obligated.... [T]his is clearly not the case. If the proposition were valid, people believing themselves legally bound would be more likely than others to have stopped treating such patients. Therefore, those legally bound by Tarasoff would be more likely than others to have treated such patients in the past, but not currently, or less likely to have treated such patients in both the current year and in prior years. The data show the opposite. Therapists bound by Tarasoff are more likely, not less, to have treated such patients during the current year and earlier and are less likely, not more, to have last treated such a patient prior to the current year. These data on professional practices are consistent with our findings regarding changes in willingness to treat." [Daniel J. Givelbe, William J. Bowers and Carolyn L. Blitch,"Tarasoff, Myth And Reality: an Empirical Study of Private Law in Action," 1984 Wis. L. Rev. 443, 479]