In Vignette Case Study Ethical Issues
Case AnalysisAngela RosadoProfessional & Ethical Issues in Forensic PsychOctober 15, 2014Mary McGreevyCase Analysis “In Vignette 3, an inmate is incarcerated due to a history of violent behavior(s). While in prison the inmate was known as being a “model prisoner”. Now that the inmate is scheduled for a parole hearing, the warden believes the inmate possesses the propensity to commit a violent crime if released, and “requests that a psychologists/psychiatrist evaluate the inmate using psychological tests”. The warden has requested that the evaluator commit a known Ethical and Statutory violations, so that he may keep the inmate in prison and that the inmate’s parole request be denied” The request by the warden is reasonable, but cannot ethically be carried out, without providing informed consent to the inmate. (AACP, 1980; American Medical Association, 1979; American Psychiatric Association, 1989; Duber, 1986). “These standards define the “emergency” as limited to life-threatening circumstances where there is a risk of escape or “the creation of internal disorder or riot” (American Psychiatric Association, 1989)”. If the mental health professional is bound by the request of the warden, then he or she should refuse the request on both ethical and legal grounds. Weinberger &
…show more content…
Sreenivasan provides clarification: “Professional ethics and standards strongly dictate obtaining informed consent, maintaining confidentiality, and discussing the limitations of confidentiality with the client (APA, 1989, 1992; Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991)”. The warden described in this vignette (3), knows about the ethical guidelines and the civil rights of prisoners. This is a matter of, how much can I get away with. The mental health professional must be ethical, and must operate with the expected standard of care, whether a member of the APA, or not. The big problem in this vignette, is that correctional officials wants the mental health officials to pretend that because of the warden’s “covert” evaluation request, they have an emergency situation on their hands. However, the correctional officials need to obtain an informed consent prior to conducting the evaluation. The standards define the “emergency” as limited to life-threatening circumstances where there is a risk of escape or “the creation of internal disorder or riot” (American Psychiatric Association, 1989)”. The warden did not present an emergency or life-threatening circumstance, which would trigger an evaluation without first obtaining informed consent prior to evaluation (AACP, 1980).Further, the evaluator was required to maintain confidentiality, and to discuss the limitations of confidentiality with the client (APA, 1989, 1992), Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991). Correctional psychologists could blindly believe they must act as the warden’s clones, and ignore the Ethical Guidelines.
“Idiosyncratic interpretations by individual clinicians as to what constitutes an exception to confidentiality and informed consent essentially undermine the validity of the written standards and ethics”. It does not matter whether the psychologist is a member of the APA. All fifty states have in place, rules and guidelines, which require Ethical conduct from licensed psychologists. “The standards provided guidelines for professional conduct sensitive to the needs of both mental health and corrections (Levinson, 1985; Travin,
1989)”.
In this scenario, the warden solicits the psychologist to join a covert conspiracy to violate the well – established constitutional rights of the inmate. The psychologist has to refuse the warden’s request. If the warden wants an evaluation performed, he must so advise the inmate, and give him all of the facts, and advise him why the evaluation is being conducted. “These standards define the “emergency” as limited to life threatening circumstances, where there is a risk of escape or “the creation of internal disorders or riot” (American Psychiatric Association, 1989)”.
REFERENCES:
American Association of Correctional Psychologists. (1980), Standards for psychology services in adult jails and prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 81-127.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychological
Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC:
Author. Board approves task force guidelines on treating prisoners, detainees. (1989, May 5).
Psychiatric News, pp. 7, 19.
Dubler, N.N. (Ed.) (1986). Standards for health services in correctional institutions. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
Sreenivasan provides clarification: “Professional ethics and standards strongly dictate obtaining informed consent, maintaining confidentiality, and discussing the limitations of confidentiality with the client (APA, 1989, 1992; Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991)”. The warden described in this vignette (3), knows about the ethical guidelines and the civil rights of prisoners. This is a matter of, how much can I get away with. The mental health professional must be ethical, and must operate with the expected standard of care, whether a member of the APA, or not. The big problem in this vignette, is that correctional officials wants the mental health officials to pretend that because of the warden’s “covert” evaluation request, they have an emergency situation on their hands. However, the correctional officials need to obtain an informed consent prior to conducting the evaluation. The standards define the “emergency” as limited to life-threatening circumstances where there is a risk of escape or “the creation of internal disorder or riot” (American Psychiatric Association, 1989)”. The warden did not present an emergency or life-threatening circumstance, which would trigger an evaluation without first obtaining informed consent prior to evaluation (AACP, 1980).Further, the evaluator was required to maintain confidentiality, and to discuss the limitations of confidentiality with the client (APA, 1989, 1992), Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991). Correctional psychologists could blindly believe they must act as the warden’s clones, and ignore the Ethical Guidelines.
“Idiosyncratic interpretations by individual clinicians as to what constitutes an exception to confidentiality and informed consent essentially undermine the validity of the written standards and ethics”. It does not matter whether the psychologist is a member of the APA. All fifty states have in place, rules and guidelines, which require Ethical conduct from licensed psychologists. “The standards provided guidelines for professional conduct sensitive to the needs of both mental health and corrections (Levinson, 1985; Travin,
1989)”.
In this scenario, the warden solicits the psychologist to join a covert conspiracy to violate the well – established constitutional rights of the inmate. The psychologist has to refuse the warden’s request. If the warden wants an evaluation performed, he must so advise the inmate, and give him all of the facts, and advise him why the evaluation is being conducted. “These standards define the “emergency” as limited to life threatening circumstances, where there is a risk of escape or “the creation of internal disorders or riot” (American Psychiatric Association, 1989)”.
REFERENCES:
American Association of Correctional Psychologists. (1980), Standards for psychology services in adult jails and prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 81-127.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychological
Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC:
Author. Board approves task force guidelines on treating prisoners, detainees. (1989, May 5).
Psychiatric News, pp. 7, 19.
Dubler, N.N. (Ed.) (1986). Standards for health services in correctional institutions. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.