AFTER EXPLAINING THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE CONCEPT OF INFORMED CONSENT, ITS NECESSARY ELEMENTS ARE REVIEWED: (1) THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO GIVE CONSENT; (2) VOLUNTARINESS; AND (3) SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF A PROCEDURE AND ITS RISKS. EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS IS EXAMINED AS IT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS TREATING OR COMING INTO CONTACT WITH RAPISTS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT DIRECTORS OF INSTITUTIONS OBTAIN INFORMED CONSENT FROM ALL STAFF MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS WHO COME INTO CONTACT WITH SEXUAL OFFENDERS. THE OBLIGATION OF THE THERAPIST TO DETERMINE THE DANGEROUSNESS OF AN OFFENDER AND TO WARN AFFECTED THIRD PARTIES WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE CASE OF TARASOFF V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (1976). TWICE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE OBLIGATION OF A THERAPIST TO DETERMINE DANGEROUSNESS AND TO EITHER WARN THOSE WHO MIGHT BE INJURED OR TO USE COMMITMENT OR OTHER MEANS TO PROTECT THIRD PARTIES. THE RELATED ISSUES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION ARE DISCUSSED AS THEY RELATE TO BOTH UNINTENTIONAL DIVULGENCES CONCERNING A CASE AND MEDICAL RECORDS AVAILABLE TO INSURANCE COMPANIES AND OUTSIDE PARTIES. THERAPISTS ARE WARNED THAT MANY WAYS EXIST TO BREACH THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF A CLIENT GIVEN OUR MODERN INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF RECORDKEEPING. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)