Titleabc123 Version X1 Case Study Four Worksheet Respond To

Titleabc123 Version X1case Study Four Worksheetrespond To The Followi

Respond to the following questions in 1,500 to 1,750 words and respond with four scholarly references.

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, b, 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

Introduction

The case involving Dr. Daniela Yeung presents a profound ethical dilemma rooted in the intersection of research ethics, legal obligations, and the safety of stakeholders involved in sensitive investigations. As a community psychologist conducting ethnographic research on men’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence, Dr. Yeung faces a scenario where a participant, Aiden, has left a disturbing message indicating suicidal intent. This situation demands careful consideration of ethical principles guiding psychologists, legal mandates like the duty to protect, and the responsibilities inherent in research practice. The analysis will explore the nature of this dilemma, relevant APA Ethical Principles, legal statutes, and potential courses of action that balance ethical obligations with research integrity.

Ethical Dilemma and Framework

The primary ethical dilemma arises from Dr. Yeung’s knowledge of Aiden’s message suggesting imminent self-harm or harm to others. The core question is whether she has an obligation to intervene by contacting emergency services, potentially breaching confidentiality, or whether to prioritize the researcher-participant boundary to maintain the integrity of her study. This dilemma encapsulates competing ethical principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, fidelity, and respect for persons, as framed by the APA Ethical Principles. Beneficence and nonmaleficence emphasize the psychologist’s duty to prevent harm, while fidelity and respect for persons highlight the importance of confidentiality, informed consent, and trust (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). These principles often come into conflict when a participant’s safety is at risk, especially in a research context where disclosure mandates are ambiguous.

Legal Standards and Duty to Protect

The duty to protect, originating from the Tarasoff decision, obligates mental health professionals to warn or protect potential victims when a client poses a credible risk of harm (Tiller & Riesenberg, 2019). However, applicability in research contexts remains unclear, as laws vary by jurisdiction and typically pertain to licensed clinicians rather than researchers. Whether Dr. Yeung’s state includes researchers under the duty to protect statute influences her legal and ethical decision-making. If the law extends this duty to researchers, Dr. Yeung may be legally compelled to intervene; otherwise, her decision hinges on ethical considerations and her professional judgment. Additionally, her status as a research psychologist without clinical licensure could affect her perceived authority and responsibility when acting to prevent harm. Her lack of clinical licensure may diminish her perceived obligation, but ethical standards still demand careful consideration of her duty to safeguard the well-being of participants and others potentially affected by their actions (Fisher, 2013).

Relevance of APA Ethical Standards

Several APA Ethical Standards directly pertain to this case. Standard 2.01f emphasizes the importance of confidentiality, except in situations where there is a risk of harm. Standard 3.04 highlights maintaining appropriate boundaries and avoiding dual relationships while prioritizing client and public safety. Standards 3.06 and 4.01 reinforce the responsibility to protect individuals from harm and to intervene when imminent danger exists. Standard 4.02 requires psychologists to disclose information in ways consistent with their ethical and legal obligations. Standard 10.10a addresses record-keeping and the importance of documenting interventions and decisions (APA, 2017). Additional standards, such as Standard 2.04 on appropriate use of assessment, and 3.07 regarding deception and informed consent, may also indirectly influence the decision, particularly in balancing research integrity against potential harm.

Ethical Alternatives and Decision-Making

Dr. Yeung’s possible actions include monitoring Aiden’s situation, reaching out to emergency services, or choosing to maintain confidentiality and continue her research. The most ethically sound alternative aligns with the aspirational principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, prioritizing safety over strict confidentiality. Contacting emergency services to prevent imminent harm meets both ethical and legal obligations and reflects a commitment to public welfare (Fisher et al., 2009). Another option is consulting with colleagues or institutional review boards (IRB) for guidance—this underpins transparency and shared responsibility. Upholding the confidentiality of other participants is also critical; any action taken must be proportionate to the risk and should preserve the integrity of the research as much as possible.

Implementation and Monitoring

To ethically implement her decision, Dr. Yeung should promptly contact emergency services to ensure Aiden’s safety, documenting her decision-making process thoroughly. She should inform and debrief her research team and institutional review board, when appropriate, about her actions and their rationale. Post-intervention, she should monitor the outcomes to assess whether Aiden received appropriate intervention and whether her research procedures need adjustment to handle similar situations in the future. Ongoing supervision, transparency, and adherence to ethical guidelines are essential to balance her dual responsibilities of research integrity and participant safety (Gable, 2009). Preparedness protocols should be established, including clear guidelines for responding to imminent risks, to guide her future actions and minimize moral distress.

Conclusion

The ethical dilemma faced by Dr. Yeung underscores the complex interplay between research ethics, legal mandates, and participant safety. Prioritizing wellbeing while safeguarding confidentiality requires a nuanced understanding of ethical principles and local laws. Contacting emergency services aligns with the core values of beneficence and nonmaleficence, serving the paramount goal of preventing harm. By acting transparently and responsibly, Dr. Yeung can uphold her ethical obligations, protect the stakeholders involved, and maintain the integrity of her research. Establishing clear protocols and seeking guidance from ethical boards contribute to responsible practice and ensure that her decision aligns with both legal standards and professional ethical principles.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
• 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.
• Tiller, L., & Riesenberg, L. (2019). Tarasoff and the researcher: Does the duty to protect apply in the research setting? American Psychologist, 74(3), 347–356.
• Author(s) Unknown. (Year). Title of related legal or ethical case studies or analysis. Journal/Publisher.
• Additional references would be included following standard APA formatting, based on scholarly sources used in the research and analysis.