Case Study Four Worksheet Respond To The Following Questions

Case Study Four Worksheetrespond To The Following Questions In 1500 T

Respond to the following questions in 1,500 to 1,750 words:

1. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma?
2. Does this situation meet the standards set by the duty to protect statute? How might whether or not Dr. Yeung’s state includes researchers under such a statute influence Dr. Yeung’s ethical decision making? How might the fact that Dr. Yeung is a research psychologist without training or licensure in clinical practice influence the ethical decision?
3. How are APA Ethical Standards 2.01a, 2.01b, and c; 2.04; 3.04; 3.06; 4.01; 4.02; and 10.10a relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?
4. What are Dr. Yeung’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principle and enforceable standard, as well as legal standards and Dr. Yeung’s obligations to stakeholders?
5. What steps should Dr. Yeung take to ethically implement her decision and monitor its effects?

Paper For Above instruction

Ethical dilemmas in psychology often involve complex considerations that balance legal obligations, ethical standards, professional responsibilities, and personal values. The case involving Dr. Yeung exemplifies such complexities, where an ethical dilemma arises from conflicting duties regarding client confidentiality, safety, and the responsibilities of a research psychologist. Understanding the nature of this dilemma requires a thorough analysis of relevant ethical principles, legal statutes, and professional standards outlined by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Identifying the Ethical Dilemma

The core of the ethical dilemma in this scenario involves whether Dr. Yeung should disclose sensitive information obtained through her research to protect potential stakeholders or third parties, potentially breaching confidentiality. On one hand, maintaining participant confidentiality is central to ethical research, authorized by the APA Ethical Principles and Standards. On the other, if there is a credible threat of harm to an individual or the public, the obligation to protect may override confidentiality, as enshrined in the duty to protect statute and consequent legal obligations.

This dilemma is further complicated by Dr. Yeung’s position as a research psychologist, which traditionally emphasizes the protection of research participants' rights and privacy. The tension between upholding confidentiality and ensuring safety underlines the ethical conflict at play. The dilemma is thus not solely a matter of confidentiality versus safety but also involves weighing legal mandates, ethical standards, and professional responsibilities.

Frameworks and Ethical Principles

The APA Ethical Principles provide foundational guidance for resolving such dilemmas. Principle A (Beneficence and Nonmaleficence) emphasizes promoting well-being and preventing harm. Principle B (Fidelity and Responsibility) underscores maintaining trustworthiness and accountability to stakeholders. Principle C (Integrity) advocates honesty and transparency. Principle D (Justice) emphasizes fairness and equitable treatment of all parties involved.

Specifically, Principles A and B are instrumental here: protecting participants from harm while also respecting their confidentiality. The ethical standards 2.01 (Boundaries of Competence), 2.04 (Bases for Assessments), 3.04 (RF Factors in Assessments), 3.06 (Assessments), 4.01 (Maintaining Confidentiality), 4.02 (Discussing Confidentiality), and 10.10a (Obligations to Protect Confidentiality) directly relate to issues of confidentiality and safety measures. These standards guide the psychologist in balancing ethical duties and legal requirements.

Legal Considerations and Duty to Protect

The duty to protect statute obligates mental health professionals to take reasonable steps to prevent harm when a credible threat is identified. If Dr. Yeung's state statute includes researchers under the duty to protect, her legal obligation to act may be triggered if she learns of an imminent danger through her research. Conversely, if her state excludes researchers, her legal obligation might be limited, but her ethical obligation remains.

Furthermore, Dr. Yeung’s lack of clinical licensure and training in clinical intervention influences her decision-making. As a research psychologist without clinical credentials, her capacity to intervene directly in threats to safety may be limited. This reality might lead her to consider referral to licensed clinicians or authorities rather than attempting to intervene herself, aligning her actions with her professional scope of practice and ethical standards.

Application of APA Standards

Several APA Ethical Standards are pertinent in this case. Standard 2.01 (Boundaries of Competence) mandates psychologists to operate within their expertise. Standard 2.04 (Bases for Assessments) emphasizes the importance of appropriate assessment methods and data. Standards 3.04 (RF Factual and Contextual Factors), 3.06 (Assessments), and 4.01 (Maintaining Confidentiality) reinforce responsibilities regarding ethical data collection and confidentiality. Standard 4.02 (Discussing Confidentiality) directs psychologists to clarify the limits of confidentiality to clients or research participants.

Standard 10.10a (Obligations to Protect Confidentiality) underscores the importance of having protocols for disclosure when there's a risk of harm. These standards collectively guide Dr. Yeung in evaluating whether disclosures are ethically justified and legally mandated. Other applicable standards might include Standard 3.10 (Providing Feedback to Participants) and Standard 4.05 (Disclosures), emphasizing transparency and appropriate communication.

Ethical Alternatives and Resolution Strategies

Dr. Yeung’s options include maintaining confidentiality and monitoring the situation, consulting with colleagues or institutional review boards (IRBs), or breaching confidentiality in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines. The most ethically sound alternative involves a careful assessment of the threat’s immediacy and severity, seeking consultation, and adhering to legal statutes concerning duty to protect.

Implementing a consultative approach aligns with the APA's aspirational principles—prioritizing beneficence, honesty, and the safety of stakeholders. It may also involve referring at-risk individuals to qualified clinical practitioners for intervention. The chosen alternative should also involve documenting decision-making and the rationale for any disclosures, in compliance with ethical standards and legal requirements.

Steps for Ethical Implementation and Monitoring

After deciding on a course of action, Dr. Yeung must ensure its ethical implementation. This involves communicating transparently with relevant stakeholders, such as research participants, colleagues, or institutions, about her decision to disclose information if justified. She should also have in place procedures for monitoring the impact of her actions, such as follow-up assessments or consulting with ethical review boards.

Documentation is crucial—details of the threat, decision-making process, consultations, and actions taken must be recorded meticulously. Continual review of the situation is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and adjust strategies accordingly. Ethical oversight committees can assist in this process, ensuring actions remain aligned with professional standards and legal mandates.

Ultimately, Dr. Yeung should balance her ethical responsibilities by acting transparently, within her scope of competence, and in ways that promote safety while respecting confidentiality whenever possible. The integration of legal obligations, ethical standards, and professional responsibilities ensures that her actions serve the best interests of all stakeholders involved.

Conclusion

The case underscores the importance of ethical discernment, legal awareness, and professional judgment in psychological practice. Dr. Yeung’s decision-making process must be guided by a careful analysis of standards, laws, and potential consequences to uphold the integrity of her profession and safeguard all involved parties. By adhering to APA ethical principles and best practices, she can navigate this complex dilemma responsibly and ethically.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for Court-Involved Therapy. American Psychologist, 65(8), 876-883.
• Fisher, C. B. (2017). Decoding the Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists. Sage Publications.
• Knapp, S. (2019). Confidentiality and Privacy in Research. Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 15(2), 45-56.
• Reamer, F. G. (2018). Ethical Standards for Social Workers in Private Practice. Social Work Today, 18(6), 12-16.
• Sieber, J. E. (2019). Planning Ethically Responsible Research: A Guide for Social Scientists. Sage Publications.
• Welfel, E. R. (2018). Ethical Decision-Making in Counseling and Psychotherapy. Cengage Learning.
• American Psychiatric Association. (2020). Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder. Retrieved from https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/clinical-practice-guidelines
• American Board of Professional Psychology. (2019). Standards of Accreditation. Retrieved from https://www.abpp.org
• Zur, O., & Bergin, A. E. (2018). Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counseling. American Psychological Association.