Read Case 4: Research On Intimate Partner Violence And The D ✓ Solved

Read Case 4: Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to D

Read Case 4: Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect. After reading the case study, answer the discussion questions below using one to two scholarly resources to support your answer, with APA in-text citations as appropriate.

Aidan is a research participant in this scenario.

What are rights to privacy and confidentiality? How was this established?

Under the circumstances in this scenario, what are the ethical issues related to his confidentiality and/or privacy?

book link:

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and framing. Privacy and confidentiality are central to human subjects research and clinical practice, yet they are not absolute. Privacy refers to individuals’ control over access to their personal information, while confidentiality refers to the obligations of researchers and clinicians to protect information shared by participants from unauthorized disclosure. These concepts are grounded in ethical theories, legal statutes, and professional standards that collectively guide how researchers design, conduct, and report IPV-related studies. In contexts such as intimate partner violence (IPV), the tension between protecting participant confidentiality and safeguarding potential victims or third parties becomes especially salient. This paper analyzes what constitutes privacy and confidentiality, how these rights have been established, and the ethical issues that arise for a researcher when a participant like Aidan may be at risk or when IPV disclosures intersect with mandatory reporting and duty-to-protect obligations. The analysis draws on widely recognized ethical codes, legal frameworks, and IPV research guidance, and it proposes practical approaches for maintaining confidentiality while prioritizing safety (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019; APA, 2017; Tarasoff v. Regents, 1976; Belmont Report, 1979).

Rights to privacy and confidentiality: definitions and baseline principles

Privacy and confidentiality rest on the core principle of respect for persons, one of the foundational ethical imperatives in research and clinical practice. Privacy is the right of individuals to control information about themselves and to decide when, how, and to what extent information about them is shared (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Confidentiality, by contrast, is a duty to protect information disclosed within a trusted relationship from unauthorized disclosure. The American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code explicitly obligates psychologists to protect the confidentiality of information obtained in the course of professional work, with limits defined by law and safety considerations (APA, 2017). In research, confidentiality is operationalized through data handling practices—de-identification, secure storage, controlled access, and clear participant consent that outlines the precise limits of confidentiality. The Belmont Report’s respect for persons and its emphasis on informed consent underlie these protections, while beneficence and justice direct how data are used to maximize benefits and minimize harms (Belmont Report, 1979).

Establishment and legal/ethical foundations

Historically, privacy and confidentiality protections emerged from a confluence of ethical theory, public health concerns, and legal requirements. The Belmont Report established formal ethical principles for human subjects research, notably respect for persons, which includes informed consent and the protection of privacy. The APA Ethics Code operationalizes these principles for psychology practice and research, outlining specific confidentiality duties and permissible disclosures (APA, 2017). Legally, the HIPAA Privacy Rule provides a federal baseline for safeguarding health information, specifying when protected health information may be disclosed and the conditions under which privacy may be breached to protect individuals or others (HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. 164). The Common Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 46) governs federally funded or regulated research and codifies requirements for privacy protections, oversight, and risk assessment in research protocols (Common Rule, 2018). In high-stakes contexts like IPV, professional duties may intersect with the duty to protect third parties; Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California is a landmark case establishing a duty to warn or protect when there is imminent risk of serious harm to others, a concept that has influenced how clinicians and researchers think about confidentiality and safety (Tarasoff v. Regents, 1976). The Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS Guidelines further reinforce the ethical obligation to protect participants while balancing risks and benefits in health-related research (World Medical Association, 2013; CIOMS, 2016). Collectively, these sources create a robust framework for privacy and confidentiality in IPV research (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019; APA, 2017; Tarasoff, 1976; Belmont, 1979; 45 C.F.R. Part 46; HIPAA; CIOMS; Helsinki).

Ethical issues in this scenario: confidentiality, privacy, and duty to protect

The scenario foregrounds several ethically charged tensions. First, the research context raises questions about the appropriate scope of confidentiality when participants disclose IPV experiences or risks to themselves or others. Confidentiality constitutes a promise of privacy, but it is not absolute. Ethical guidelines acknowledge that researchers may disclose information without consent when there is a clear and imminent risk of harm to the participant or others, or when mandated by law (APA, 2017). This is conceptually linked to Tarasoff’s duty to warn or protect, which obligates care providers to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm when a patient poses a serious risk of violence to others. In research, this introduces a potential conflict: protecting participant privacy versus preventing harm to potential victims or third parties (Tarasoff, 1976). Researchers must carefully balance these duties, often by planning in advance with IRB-approved protocols that specify thresholds for disclosure, steps for safety planning, and the use of risk assessment instruments (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019; CIOMS, 2016).

Second, IPV research commonly intersects with mandatory reporting laws. Some jurisdictions require reporting certain forms of abuse or imminent danger to authorities, regardless of confidentiality promises. Researchers must understand local legal obligations and clearly communicate limits of confidentiality during informed consent. The ethical imperative is to protect vulnerable participants while fulfilling legal duties, and to do so in a way that minimizes harm and preserves trust where possible (Belmont; HIPAA; Common Rule; Declaration of Helsinki). Finally, data security and de-identification are critical. Even when information is reported in aggregate or de-identified form, re-identification risks persist in IPV contexts where sensitive details and small samples can render participants identifiable. Therefore, robust data governance practices—limited access, encryption, secure data transfer, and audit trails—are essential (APA, 2017; Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

Practical implications and recommended practices

To navigate these ethical complexities, researchers should incorporate explicit privacy/confidentiality protections into study design and consent processes. Recommendations include: (1) clear articulation of what will be kept confidential, what will be disclosed, and under what conditions; (2) explicit statements about any mandatory reporting obligations and the rare instances when disclosure would occur, including the steps that would be taken to minimize harm; (3) use of de-identified data whenever possible, with secure storage and restricted access; (4) implementation of data encryption, secure servers, and robust access controls; (5) a pre-registered protocol outlining Tarasoff-style duties to protect, thresholds for breach, and procedures for safety planning with participants; and (6) ongoing IRB oversight to ensure that confidentiality protections align with evolving ethical and legal standards (APA, 2017; CIOMS, 2016; HIPAA; Common Rule). In practice, researchers should include IPV risk assessment, safety planning, and resource provision in consent materials and debriefings, ensuring participants have access to support services if disclosures reveal acute risk (WHO, 2013).

Conclusion

Rights to privacy and confidentiality in IPV research are grounded in ethical principles, civil rights, and professional standards that seek to respect participants while protecting them and others from harm. The establishment of these rights rests on the Belmont Report, the APA Ethics Code, and legal frameworks such as the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the Common Rule, all of which permit disclosure under well-defined, safety-focused conditions. In the Aidan scenario, the ethical issues center on balancing confidentiality with duty to protect and mandatory reporting obligations, requiring careful planning, transparent consent, and rigorous data protections to uphold both participant privacy and public safety.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Belmont Report. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. U.S. Government Printing Office.
• CIOMS. (2016). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.
• Declaration of Helsinki. World Medical Association. (2013). Helsinki Declaration: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
• Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976).
• 45 C.F.R. Part 46 (Common Rule). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018).
• HIPAA Privacy Rule. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). 45 C.F.R. 160 and 164.
• World Health Organization. (2013). Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women: WHO guidelines.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html