Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect

Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect
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 injuring 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 discussing 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. FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc. 360——DECODING THE ETHICS CODE 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? Suggested Readings 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? Moral perspectives of street drug users. In D. Buchanan, C. B. Fisher, & L. Gable (Eds.), Research with high-risk populations: Balancing science, ethics, and law (pp. 189–206). Washington, DC: 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). Washington, DC: 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.
Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect
Case Study Four Worksheet Respond to the following questions in 1,500 to 1,750 words and respond with four scholarly references. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma? Does this situation meet the standards set by the duty to protect statue? 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? 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? 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? What steps should Dr. Yeung take to ethically implement her decision and monitor its effects? Reference Fisher, C. B. (2013). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.