Case Study 4 Research On Intimate Partner Violence

Case Study 4 Research On Intimate Partner Violence And The Duty To Pr

Case Study 4. Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect Dr. Daniela Yeung, a community psychologist, has been conducting a federally funded ethnographic study of men’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence following conviction and release from prison for spousal abuse. Over the course of a year, she has had individual monthly interviews with 25 participants while they were in jail and following their release. Aiden, a 35-year-old male parolee convicted of seriously injuring his wife, has been interviewed by Dr. Yeung on eight occasions. The interviews have covered a range of personal topics including Aiden’s problem drinking, which is marked by blackouts and threatening phone calls made to his parents and girlfriend when he becomes drunk, usually in the evening. To her knowledge, Aiden has never followed through on these threats. It is clear that Aiden feels very comfortable discussing his life with Dr. Yeung.

One evening Dr. Yeung checks her answering machine and finds a message from Aiden. His words are slurred and angry: “Now that you know the truth about what I am you know that there is nothing you can do to help the evil inside me. The bottle is my savior and I will end this with them tonight.” Each time she calls Aiden’s home phone she gets a busy signal. Ethical Dilemma Dr. Yeung has Aiden’s address, and after 2 hours, she is considering whether or not to contact emergency services to go to Aiden’s home or to the homes of his parents and girlfriend.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Ethical considerations in research involving high-risk populations often pose complex dilemmas, especially when an imminent risk of harm to third parties is identified. Case Study 4 presents a profound ethical challenge faced by Dr. Daniela Yeung, a community psychologist conducting ethnographic research on intimate partner violence (IPV). The core issue revolves around whether she has a moral and legal obligation to intervene upon discovering a credible threat of suicide or violence, specifically in the context of her interaction with Aiden, a parolee with a history of IPV. This paper explores the ethical principles involved, relevant legal considerations, and the practical implications of action or inaction in situations where participant information indicates imminent harm to others or oneself.

Ethical Principles and Dilemmas

Central to the ethical dilemma is the application of the principle of beneficence, which obligates researchers to prevent harm, and the principle of nonmaleficence, which emphasizes avoiding causing harm (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). In this case, Dr. Yeung possesses information that suggests Aiden is contemplating self-harm or violence towards others, notably his wife, family, or himself. The question arises: does her duty to protect outweigh the confidentiality promise inherent in research? The Tarasoff case is often cited as a legal precedent establishing that mental health professionals have a duty to warn potential victims if a credible threat exists (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1976). Yet, as a researcher, the scope of this duty is less clear, raising the question of whether its application extends outside clinical practice to research settings.

Legal and Ethical Frameworks

Legal doctrines vary across jurisdictions, but many recognize some form of duty to protect third parties in situations involving imminent threats (Fisher et al., 2009). The American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles highlight the importance of protecting vulnerable populations while balancing the obligation to maintain confidentiality (APA, 2017). Researchers are often caught between respecting participant confidentiality and preventing foreseeable harm (Gable, 2009). Ethical frameworks advocate for risk assessment and proactive intervention if credible threats are identified, particularly when the safety of others is at clear risk.

Application to the Case

In this case, Dr. Yeung receives an alarming message indicating that Aiden is contemplating suicide and possibly violent actions. Given her knowledge of Aiden’s history, including his problematic drinking, threats, and recent behavior, her decision to contact emergency services could be justified under the duty to protect. The immediate risks—imminent suicide and potential harm to others—suggest a moral obligation to act, aligning with principles outlined by Appelbaum and Rosenbaum (1989), who argue that the duty to protect may be invoked in research contexts if there is a tangible threat.

Considerations and Recommendations

Nevertheless, the decision is not straightforward, as breaching confidentiality could undermine trust in research and discourage honest disclosure. To navigate this, researchers should establish clear protocols at the outset—such as including clauses about mandatory reporting of imminent threats in informed consent forms (Jordan, Campbell, & Follingstad, 2010). If such protocols are in place, then Dr. Yeung’s dilemma becomes a matter of ethically and legally justified action. If not, she faces the challenge of balancing her moral responsibility against potential damage to participant trust and privacy.

In practice, the safest course of action appears to be contacting emergency services promptly given the credible threat expressed in the message. Doing so aligns with the duty to protect, reduces immediate risk, and adheres to ethical responsibilities, provided that she documents her decision carefully and considers legal advice if necessary.

Conclusion

Ethical conduct in research involving high-risk individuals necessitates preparedness and clarity regarding intervention protocols in situations of imminent danger. The case underscores the importance of developing ethical guidelines that reconcile confidentiality with the moral imperative to prevent harm. In situations where credible threats are identified, as in this case, contacting emergency services exemplifies the responsible course of action. Future research protocols must incorporate specific procedures to address such crises, ensuring both ethical integrity and the safety of all involved parties.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 72(1), 41–50.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Fisher, C. B., Oransky, M., Mahadevan, M., Singer, M., Mirhej, G., & Hodge, G. D. (2009). Do drug abuse researchers have a duty to protect third parties from HIV transmission? Moral perspectives of street drug users. In D. Buchanan, C. B. Fisher, & L. Gable (Eds.), Research with high-risk populations: Balancing science, ethics, and law (pp. 189–206). American Psychological Association.
• Gable, L. (2009). Legal challenges raised by non-intervention research conducted under high-risk circumstances. In D. Buchanan, C. B. Fisher, & L. Gable (Eds.), Research with high-risk populations: Balancing science, ethics, and law (pp. 47–74). American Psychological Association.
• Jordan, C. E., Campbell, R., & Follingstad, D. (2010). Violence and women’s mental health: The impact of physical, sexual, & psychological aggression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 607–628.
• Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976).