ABC/123 Version X 1 Case Study One Worksheet PSYCH/660

ABC/123 Version X 1 Case Study One Worksheet PSYCH/660

Respond to the following questions in 1,.

Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma?

How might Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence toward the death penalty influence his decision to offer a forensic diagnosis of intellectual disability? How might John’s “confession” or his comment about the “boy waiting for the bus” influence the decision? To what extent should these factors play a role in Dr. Romaro’s report?

How are APA Ethical Standards 2.0, 3.06, 4.04, 4.05, 5.01, 9.01a, and 9.06 relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?

What steps should Dr. Romaro take to ethically implement his decision and monitor its effect?

Reference Fisher, C. B. (2013). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paper For Above instruction

The presented case study revolves around Dr. Romaro, a psychologist faced with an ethical dilemma concerning the diagnosis of a defendant, John, who admits to significant actions but also makes statements that complicate his psychological profile. At the core of this scenario is the ethical challenge of balancing honesty, objectivity, and professional integrity with personal moral beliefs and societal expectations, particularly surrounding capital punishment and intellectual disability assessment.

Nature of the Ethical Dilemma

This situation exemplifies an ethical dilemma because Dr. Romaro must navigate competing principles—his obligation to provide an accurate and objective diagnosis versus his personal moral stance against the death penalty. The dilemma is further compounded by potential biases influencing his professional judgment, especially under the weight of high-stakes legal and moral issues associated with capital punishment. According to the APA Ethics Code (American Psychological Association, 2017), psychologists are responsible for maintaining objectivity and integrity in their work, which is challenged here as personal beliefs could interfere with professional responsibilities (Standard 2.0).

Relevant APA Ethical Principles

The core principles framing this dilemma include Principle A (Beneficence and Nonmaleficence), Principle B (Fidelity and Responsibility), and Principle C (Integrity). Beneficence urges psychologists to contribute positively to clients and society, but personal biases risk causing harm by impairing objectivity. Fidelity involves maintaining trustworthiness and responsibility towards clients and courts, which requires impartial evaluations despite personal moral considerations. Integrity emphasizes honesty and accuracy—ethical standards that Dr. Romaro must uphold even when personal opinions about the death penalty might influence his diagnosis.

Influence of Dr. Romaro’s Personal Attitudes and John’s Statements

Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence toward the death penalty could influence his objectivity, leading him to overcompensate or underreport certain aspects of John’s psychological profile. Such bias could distort the diagnostic process, potentially affecting legal outcomes. Similarly, John’s confession and the comment about the “boy waiting for the bus” may influence Dr. Romaro’s interpretation of the case, either unconsciously or consciously. These statements could be seen as indicative of remorse, confusion, or other psychological factors, but weighing their importance is crucial. The therapist must consider whether these comments are relevant to the diagnosis or if they are peripheral statements that could bias the report. Ethical guidelines stipulate that psychologists should assess all relevant information neutrally, avoiding undue influence from subjective impressions (Standard 9.06), emphasizing the importance of data integrity in forensic assessments.

Application of Relevant APA Ethical Standards

Several APA Ethical Standards are directly relevant:

  • Standard 2.0, Competence: Psychologists must ensure their assessments are within their expertise, especially in forensic contexts.
  • Standard 3.06, Conflicts of Interest: Psychologists must manage personal beliefs to avoid impairing objectivity.
  • Standard 4.04, Maintaining Confidentiality: Ensuring information is used appropriately in diagnosis and reporting, especially in legal contexts.
  • Standard 4.05, Disclosures: Psychologists must be transparent regarding their findings and limitations.
  • Standard 5.01, Avoiding Harm: Recognizing how diagnostic decisions impact individuals and society.
  • Standard 9.01a, Bases for Assessments: Basing diagnoses on valid, reliable evidence.
  • Standard 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results: Providing an objective interpretation free from bias.

Other standards that might apply include Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, particularly considering forensic context and potential societal impact.

Steps for Ethical Implementation and Monitoring

To uphold ethical standards, Dr. Romaro should take several proactive steps. First, he should engage in self-reflection to identify personal biases related to the death penalty, possibly consulting with colleagues or ethics boards to mitigate potential influence. Second, he should document all relevant information objectively, including his rationale for the diagnosis, and ensure that his report clearly articulates the basis for his conclusions, citing empirical evidence and standardized assessment tools.

Further, Dr. Romaro should participate in peer review or supervision to validate his findings and maintain professional accountability. Continuous self-monitoring and reflection are vital; he could implement periodic reviews of his assessments and update his evaluations based on new evidence or feedback. Transparency with legal professionals and clients about the limitations of his assessment and potential biases is necessary to uphold honesty and respect principles of integrity.

Finally, adherence to the APA’s ethical standards involves re-evaluating his stance on the death penalty and making an explicit effort to set aside personal beliefs during the diagnostic process to prevent them from influencing his professional judgment adversely.

Conclusion

The case underscores the importance of ethical vigilance in forensic psychology, where personal beliefs and societal issues intersect with professional responsibilities. Dr. Romaro’s commitment to objectivity, transparency, and adherence to ethical standards ensures that his diagnosis maintains integrity and contributes meaningfully to the legal process while respecting the rights and dignity of the individual involved.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 72(9), 822–834.
  • Fisher, C. B. (2013). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Sage Publications.
  • Garb, H. N. (2005). Ethical standards for psychological testing and assessment. American Psychologist, 60(7), 713–726.
  • Knapp, S. J., & VandeCreek, L. (2012). Practical ethics for psychologists: A positive approach. American Psychological Association.
  • McMahon, B. T., & Rinchuse, D. J. (2010). The forensic assessment of intellectual disability. Psychological Injury and Law, 3(2), 107–118.
  • Symes, R. G. (2012). Role of ethics in forensic psychological assessments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(2), 189–203.
  • Welfel, E. R. (2015). Ethics in counseling & psychotherapy. Cengage Learning.
  • Reamer, F. G. (2013). The ethics of social work. Social Work, 58(4), 351–363.
  • Skeem, J. L., & Mulvey, E. P. (2006). Ethical considerations in forensic assessments. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 229–240.
  • Zur, O., & Wiggins, O. P. (2005). The APA ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: The impact on forensic assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(5), 519–526.

Related Assignments