Question

Decoding the Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists (3rd Edition), Author Celia B Fisher

Case 4. Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect

Dr. Daniela Yeung, a community psychologist, has been conducting a federally funded ethnographic study of men’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence following conviction and release from prison for spousal abuse. Over the course of a year, she has had individual monthly interviews with 25 participants while they were in jail and following their release. Aiden, a 35-year-old male parolee convicted of seriously injur-ing his wife, has been interviewed by Dr. Yeung on eight occasions. The interviews have covered a range of personal topics including Aiden’s problem drinking, which is marked by blackouts and threatening phone calls made to his parents and girlfriend when he becomes drunk, usually in the evening. To her knowledge, Aiden has never followed through on these threats. It is clear that Aiden feels very comfortable discuss-ing his life with Dr. Yeung. One evening Dr. Yeung checks her answering machine and finds a message from Aiden. His words are slurred and angry: “Now that you know the truth about what I am you know that there is nothing you can do to help the evil inside me. The bottle is my savior and I will end this with them tonight.” Each time she calls Aiden’s home phone she gets a busy signal.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Yeung has Aiden’s address, and after 2 hours, she is considering whether or not to contact emergency services to go to Aiden’s home or to the homes of his parents and girlfriend.

Discussion Questions

1. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma? 2. Who are the stakeholders and how will they be affected by how Dr. Yeung resolves this dilemma? 3. Does this situation meet the standards set by the Tarasoff decision’s “duty to protect” statute (see Chapter 7)? 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? 4. In addressing this dilemma, should Dr. Yeung consider how her decision may affect the completion of her research (e.g., the confidentiality concerns of other participants)? 5. How are APA Ethical Standards 2.01f, 3.04, 3.06, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 8.01 relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply? 6. What are Dr. Yeung’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding your decision? 7. What steps should Dr. Yeung take to implement her decision and monitor its effect?

Answer 1

In criminal settings it is normal to face these situations. Hoeever in criminal settings we should follow ethicaal rules as to not disclose any identity as safety is the main consideration.Any clinical or research psychologist conducting interviews should not disclose identity or personal details about themselves.They can mention the prganization name they are affilated to as they need an informed consent to carry out researchIn this situation Dr Yeung is not only putting her self in a dilemma but also the affiliated body concerned.Dr yeung should contact the person concerned before contacting the family. She can also get in touch with her supervisor for taking further steps. The supervisor or the prison authorities should be informed.The fact that she disclosed her identity and personal details could have placed Dr Yeung in a serious threat.

Researchers often are faced with this dillma as they can become emotionally involved as they are talking to people involved in research. This is the fundamental ethics to be followed.It is always better to have a state licensure and training before starting research in such situations.