Prior To Beginning Work On This Discussion Please Read The F

Prior To Beginning Work On This Discussion Please Read the Following

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, please read the following required articles: “Relations Between Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning,” “The Effect of the Environment (Real and Virtual) and The Personality on the Speed of Decision Making,” “Decision-Making Theories and Models: A Discussion of Rational and Psychological Decision-Making Theories and Models,” “The Search for a Cultural-Ethical Decision-Making Model,” “Seven Basic Steps to Solving Ethical Dilemmas in Special Education: A Decision-Making Framework,” and “Looking for a Psychology for the Inner Rational Agent.” Play the expert in the following scenario and apply ethical principles and professional standards of decision-making to your rationale and actions: You are a counseling psychologist in a state prison. You have been counseling a new inmate, and he confided in you that one of the other inmates has indicated he is considering suicide. He does not divulge the name of the other inmate and refuses to talk any further about the issue. Consider the following steps in your decision-making process: Define the problem. Explore the alternatives. Consider the consequences. Identify ethical considerations. Determine how you would reduce bias in your decision-making process. Explain your decision.

Paper For Above instruction

As a counseling psychologist working within the confines of a state prison, I am faced with a complex ethical dilemma involving the mental health and safety of an inmate who confides in me about a potential suicide. The situation demands careful consideration of ethical principles, professional standards, and decision-making frameworks to ensure that my actions prioritize safety while respecting confidentiality and fairness.

The primary concern in this scenario is the risk of suicide among an inmate, which presents a clear ethical obligation to protect life (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). The inmate’s disclosure, though vague and anonymous, triggers the duty to assess and mitigate potential harm. The challenge here lies in balancing the obligation to maintain confidentiality—a core component of therapeutic trust—with the duty to prevent imminent harm, which may necessitate breaching confidentiality under ethical guidelines, particularly if there is a foreseeable risk of harm.

The first step in the decision-making process is defining the problem: How to responsibly address an anonymous report of potential suicide risk within a prison setting. The problem involves assessing the credibility of the threat, the possibility of imminent danger, and determining appropriate intervention strategies while navigating ethical duties related to confidentiality, beneficence, and non-maleficence.

Exploring the alternatives involves several options. The first alternative is to maintain confidentiality, refrain from further investigation, and monitor the inmate’s behavior, which minimizes breach of trust but may inadequately address the potential risk. The second alternative is to report the concern to prison authorities without disclosing specific details, promoting safety while respecting confidentiality limits. The third option is to conduct a confidential risk assessment, possibly by engaging the inmate further, if possible, and utilizing risk assessment tools to evaluate the threat level. The final alternative is to involve mental health or security personnel directly, which may lead to surveillance or intervention measures.

Considering the consequences of each alternative reveals varying impacts. Maintaining confidentiality may leave the potential victim unprotected if the threat is serious, risking harm or death. Reporting concerns to authorities without specifics may lead to security responses that could compromise trust but may still offer safety. Conducting a risk assessment could yield a more precise understanding of the danger, supporting a tailored intervention. Direct involvement of security personnel ensures immediate safety but could infringe on privacy rights and damage therapeutic rapport.

Ethical considerations are paramount. The APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017) emphasize the importance of beneficence—acting in the best interest of the individual—and non-maleficence—preventing harm. Confidentiality is fundamental, but it is not absolute; it may be breached if there is a clear and imminent danger (APA, 2017). Additionally, considerations about cultural competence, respect for inmate rights, and the prison environment’s security protocols must inform the decision. Recognizing possible biases—such as assumptions about inmate honesty or severity of threat—is crucial, as bias can influence the perception of threat and subsequent actions.

To reduce bias, I would rely on empirical risk assessment tools and standardized protocols, avoid making assumptions based solely on the inmate’s initial disclosure, and consult with colleagues or prison mental health staff for peer review of my plan. This collaborative approach helps ensure that decisions are evidence-based and ethically sound, reducing personal biases.

My decision, therefore, is to report the concern to appropriate prison mental health professionals and security staff without disclosing the inmate’s identity or the specifics of the conversation unless further information is obtained. I would document the disclosure and my assessment process meticulously, ensuring transparency and adherence to confidentiality safeguards. This approach aligns with ethical standards to protect life while respecting the inmate’s privacy as much as possible and leveraging professional resources for thorough assessment and intervention.

In conclusion, addressing this ethical dilemma requires balancing safety, confidentiality, and fairness through a structured decision-making process guided by ethical principles and professional standards. Prioritizing risk assessment and collaborating with prison mental health professionals helps ensure that both safety and ethical obligations are met, demonstrating a responsible and compassionate approach to mental health care in correctional settings.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
• Corey, G., Corey, M. S., & Callanan, P. (2014). Issues and ethics in the helping professions (9th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
• Reamer, F. G. (2018). Ethical decision making in social work practice. Social Work Today, 18(2), 20-24.
• Fisher, C. B. (2017). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. SAGE Publications.
• Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Slade, M. (2017). Mental health nursing: An evidence-based introductory text. Taylor & Francis.
• Henning, M. A., & Burdette, S. (2016). Ethics in correctional mental health: An interdisciplinary perspective. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 22(4), 284-290.
• Gutierrez, J. M., & Fornili, C. (2020). Ethical dilemmas in forensic mental health assessments. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 20(3), 264-279.
• Johnson, W. B., & Lichtenberg, J. D. (2014). Ethical issues in prison mental health care. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 20(3), 203-210.
• Fisher, C., & Ackerman, P. (2017). Ethical challenges in mental health practice with offenders. Oxford University Press.