Research On Intimate Partner Violence And The Duty

Research On Intimate Partner Violence And The Dut

Read Case 4: Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect from your textbook. After reading the case, answer the discussion questions provided. Use scholarly sources to support your answers, incorporate APA citations where appropriate, and aim for a minimum of 50 words per question. The case involves Dr. Daniela Yeung, a community psychologist conducting ethnographic research on men's attitudes toward intimate partner violence following incarceration. She has received a threatening message from Aiden, a parolee convicted of serious injury to his wife, and is considering whether to contact emergency services. The ethical dilemma revolves around whether Dr. Yeung should breach confidentiality to protect potential victims, considering her role as a researcher and applicable legal and ethical standards. Your responses should analyze the dilemma, identify stakeholders, connect to relevant APA Ethical Principles, explore alternative actions, and recommend steps for ethical decision-making.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma presented in Dr. Daniela Yeung’s case is rooted in balancing the confidentiality obligations inherent in research with the moral and legal responsibility to prevent harm to potential victims of violence. The core ethical principles that frame this dilemma are outlined in the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethics Code, primarily Principles A (Beneficence and Nonmaleficence), B (Fidelity and Responsibility), and A (Respect for Persons). Beneficence emphasizes promoting well-being and avoiding harm, which in this context, suggests that breaching confidentiality might be necessary to prevent imminent danger. Fidelity and Responsibility underscore the psychologist’s obligation to protect individuals from harm when foreseeable, while Respect for Persons relates to respecting the rights and dignity of all individuals involved, including potential victims and the research participant.

The stakeholders impacted by Dr. Yeung’s decision include Aiden, his family members, other potential victims, the research participants, the broader community, and Dr. Yeung herself. If she chooses to contact emergency services, Aiden’s privacy may be compromised, but potential victims might be spared from imminent harm. Conversely, if she decides against intervention, she risks allowing harm to occur, which could lead to serious injuries or death. Her reputation, professional integrity, and the integrity of her research could be affected depending on her decision. The families of Aiden and the victims are directly impacted, along with community safety and legal consequences. Ethical resolution requires careful consideration of these stakeholders, ensuring that protective actions are prioritized while respecting confidentiality as much as possible.

The Tarasoff duty to protect, originating from a legal case in California, mandates mental health professionals to warn potential victims when a client poses a credible threat of violence. Although originally applicable in clinical practice, its applicability to researchers like Dr. Yeung depends on state statutes and whether researchers are legally considered mandated reporters under such laws. If her state extends the duty to protect to researchers, she may have a legal obligation to report Aiden’s threats. If not, her decision rests more on ethical considerations aligned with APA principles. Dr. Yeung’s lack of clinical licensure and mental health training further complicates her position. While she is not a clinician, her ethical responsibility involves safeguarding potential victims, which may justify contacting emergency services in this case, provided it aligns with institutional policies and legal frameworks.

Addressing this dilemma also involves considering the impact of her decision on ongoing research activities. Breaching confidentiality, even for protection purposes, could compromise the trust of other participants and impact the overall integrity of the ethnographic study. Maintaining confidentiality is a pillar of ethical research, but not at the expense of physical safety. Thus, Dr. Yeung must weigh the immediate need to prevent harm against the potential for damaging the trust and confidentiality integral to her research process. Balancing these concerns requires adherence to ethical standards that guide responsible conduct in research, including protecting participants from harm while upholding confidentiality principles.

The relevant APA Ethical Standards include 2.01f (Avoiding Harm), 3.04 (Avoiding Harm and Exploitation), 3.06 (Personal and Boundary Problems), 4.01 (Maintaining Confidentiality), 4.02 (Documenting Professional Work and Decisions), 4.05 (Disclosures), and 8.01 (Research and Publication). Standard 2.01f emphasizes the psychologist’s responsibility to minimize harm, which supports intervention when there is a credible threat. Standard 4.01 underscores maintaining confidentiality but allows for disclosures when there is an imminent risk of harm. Additionally, other standards like 3.04 highlight the importance of safeguarding the well-being of individuals involved in or affected by research. Collectively, these standards guide ethical action, emphasizing safety and integrity.

To resolve the dilemma ethically, Dr. Yeung could consider alternatives such as consulting with colleagues or supervisors, reviewing institutional policies, or seeking legal advice before acting. The most ethically appropriate alternative generally involves contacting emergency services to intervene, as protecting potential victims takes precedence over confidentiality in imminent danger situations. This aligns with the aspirational principles of the Ethics Code that promote beneficence and responsibility to prevent harm. From a consequentialist ethical perspective, actions that prevent harm and save lives are justified, even if they involve breaching confidentiality. This approach prioritizes the well-being of potential victims while maintaining professional integrity and respecting stakeholder responsibilities.

Implementing her decision necessitates clear documentation of her reasoning, actions, and consultation process. Dr. Yeung should inform her institutional review board or ethics committee, if applicable, and follow legal requirements applicable in her jurisdiction. She should also prepare to support her decision with thorough documentation, including evidence of imminent danger and her adherence to ethical standards. Monitoring the ongoing impact of her decision involves observing any repercussions on research participation, trust, and community safety. She should also debrief participants and stakeholders, ensuring transparency about the actions taken and their rationale, thereby fostering continued trust and ethical accountability.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• Appelbaum, P., & Rosenbaum, A. (1989). Tarasoff and the researcher: Does the duty to protect apply in the research setting? American Psychologist, 44(6), 885–894.
• 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? 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.
• Heinlen, K., Welfel, T., Reynolds, E., Richmond, E., & O’Donnell, M. S. (2003). The nature, scope, and ethics of psychologists’ e-therapy web sites: What consumers find when surfing the web. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40, 112–124.
• McGarragh, N. A., Baker, A., Martinem J. N., & Haldeman, D. C. (2009). In the public eye: The ethical practice of media psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 172–180.
• Nicholson, I. R. (2011). New technology, old issues: Demonstrating the relevance of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists to the ever-sharper cutting edge of technology. Canadian Psychology, 52, 215–224.
• Shaw, H. E., & Shaw, S. H. (2006). Critical ethical issues in online counseling: Assessing current practices with an ethical intent checklist. Journal of Counseling & Development.