Ethics and Professional Issues - Flash Cards
Fact Versus Expert Witness
A fact witness is a person “who testifies as to what he/she has seen, heard, or otherwise observed regarding a circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually took place…. Fact witnesses are generally not allowed to offer an opinion, address issues that they do not have personal knowledge of or respond to hypothetical situations” (APA, 1998, p. 7). An expert witness is a person “who by reason of education or specialized experience possesses superior knowledge respecting a subject about which persons having no particular training are incapable of forming an accurate opinion or deducing correct conclusions” (Nolan & Nolan-Haley, 1990, p. 578). A person who has been qualified as an expert witness by the court is allowed to offer opinions and provide testimony based on hypothetical scenarios.
Cost Analysis
Cost analysis refers to techniques that are used to assess the costs of an intervention in order to facilitate decision-making about the intervention. Methods of cost analysis include cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-feasibility, cost-minimization analysis, and cost-offset analysis.
Competence
Standard 2.01 requires psychologists to “provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience.”
Collection Agencies
Standard 6.04 states that “if the recipient of services does not pay for services as agreed, and if psychologists intend to use collection agencies or legal measures to collect the fees, psychologists first inform the person that such measures will be taken and provide that person an opportunity to make prompt payment.”
Child Abuse Reporting
Although the specific laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, all jurisdictions require psychologists to report known or suspected cases of child abuse to the appropriate authorities.
Interruption and Termination of Therapy
Standard 10.10 requires psychologists to “terminate therapy when it becomes reasonably clear that the client/patient no longer needs the service, is not likely to benefit, or is being harmed by continued service” and, when doing so, to “provide pretermination counseling and suggest alternative service providers as appropriate.” An exception to this general rule is provided in Standard 10.10(b), which states that pretermination counseling or referral is not necessary when a psychologist is terminating therapy with a client because the client or a person the client has a relationship with poses a threat to the psychologist.
Pro Bono Services
Although the term pro bono is not used in the Ethics Code, General Principle B (Fidelity and Responsibility) states that “psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage.” Because pro bono services are addressed in the Ethics Code’s aspirational General Principles rather than in its mandatory Ethical Standards, this means that pro bono services are recommended by the Code but are not required.
Sexual Intimacies With Clients And Former Clients
Standard 10.05 explicitly prohibits psychologists from having sexual relationships with current clients, while Standard 10.08 forbids a psychologist from having a sexual relationship with a former client for at least two years after cessation of therapy. The latter Standard also states that, even after the two-year limit has passed, a relationship may be acceptable only in the “most unusual circumstances.” Standard 10.07 prohibits psychologists from providing therapy to people with whom they have had sexual relationships in the past.
Multiple Relationships
Standard 3.05 states that “a psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if it could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.”
Vicarious Liability
Under certain circumstances, supervisors and employers may be legally responsible for the actions of their supervisees and employees. This is referred to as vicarious liability (respondeat superior).
EPPP
The EPPP (Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology) is a requirement for licensure in the United States and Canada. It is prepared by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) and is designed to assist the boards “in their evaluation of the qualifications of applicants for licensure and certification” by assessing “the knowledge that the most recent practice analysis has determined as foundational to the competent practice of psychology” (ASPPB, 2010).
Sexual Relations With Students And Supervisees
Standard 7.07 states that “psychologists do not engage in sexual relationships with students or supervisees who are in their department, agency, or training center or over whom psychologists have or are likely to have evaluative authority.”
Publication Credit
Standard 8.12 states: “(a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed … [and] (b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status.”
Responding to a Subpoena
(1) The first step is to determine if the subpoena is a legally valid demand. (2) If the subpoena is valid, a formal response is required, but the psychologist should first contact the client to discuss the implications of providing the requested information. (3) If the client consents to disclosure and there is no valid reason for withholding the information, the psychologist should provide the requested information. If the client does not consent, the psychologist or his/her attorney can attempt to negotiate with the party who issued the subpoena. (4) If the client does not consent and the requesting party continues to demand that the information be provided, the psychologist can seek guidance from the court informally through a letter or have his/her attorney file a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for a protective order
Tarasoff Decision
The original Tarasoff decision established a “duty to warn” an intended victim of a therapy client; however, in a rehearing of the case, this was changed to a “duty to protect” an intended victim by warning him/her, notifying the police, or taking other steps. In most jurisdictions, the duty to warn/protect applies only when a client poses a clear and imminent danger to an identifiable victim or victims (although, in some jurisdictions, the duty has been expanded to include an identifiable “class of victims”).
Consultation
Standard 4.06 states that “when consulting with colleagues, (1) psychologists do not disclose confidential information that reasonably could lead to the identification of a client/patient, research participant, or other person or organization with whom they have a confidential relationship unless they have obtained the prior consent of the person or organization or the disclosure cannot be avoided, and (2) they disclose information only to the extent necessary to achieve the purposes of the consultation.”
Deception In Research
Standard 8.07 states that deception is acceptable only when the following conditions are met: (a) The use of deception is justified by the “study’s significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and … effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible”; (b) prospective participants are not deceived about conditions that can be “reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress”; and (c) participants will be debriefed “preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection.”
Ethical Violations By Colleagues
Standard 1.04 encourages psychologists to handle ethical violations informally by discussing the matter with the offender when an “informal resolution appears appropriate”; while Standard 1.05 states that psychologists make a formal report to the Ethics Committee, state licensing board, or other appropriate authority when the problem involves “substantial harm” and is not appropriate for an informal resolution or has not been resolved satisfactorily by an attempt at an informal resolution. These Standards also require that, before psychologists take any action, they must consider the issue of client confidentiality.