case study 4 MK
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
500
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by Meganckelley
Megan Kelley
Case Study
7/13/2022
1.Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the
dilemma?
The ethical dilemma in this is that Dr. Yeung is not the therapist of Aiden and Maya while she is
not the therapist, she is seeing them due to their partner violence. Although Dr. Yeung is not their
therapist, she still must follow the guidelines of causing no harm to her clients and this also
requires her to contact law enforcement. The principles that help frame the nature of this
dilemma which are in Fisher (2017) are Principal A (beneficence and nonmaleficence) and
Principal E (Respect for people’s rights and dignity).
2.Who are the stakeholders and how will they be affected by how Dr. Yeung resolves this
dilemma?
The Stakeholders in this case study are Dr. Yeung and both of her clients. This is because of this
case whatever decision is made it can impact all parties. This is because however Dr. Yeung
chooses to resolve this situation everyone who is deemed as the stakeholders will be affected.
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?
Due to Aiden’s history and his threats to harm himself as well as others this case does align with
the duty to protect statue. Dr. Yeung has a duty to report this to her designated state. However,
some states do only require this to be reported to law enforcement and not any other parties. With
Dr. Yeung only being a research psychologist, she should not be affected by this ethical decision
if she reports the threat.
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)?
In this case the decision affecting Dr. Yeung research should not be considered. This is because
due to Aiden’s substance and violent background the choice of Dr. Yeung should solely be about
getting Aiden help and not causing harm. The completion of her research is far less substantial
than getting Aiden the help that is needed.
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?
The APA ethical standards listed all do correspond with this case study. 2.01f familiar with
judicial and governing rules, 3.04 is avoiding harm, 3.06 is conflict of interest, 4.01 is
maintaining confidentiality, 4.02 is discussing limits of confidentiality, 4.05 is disclosures, and
8.01 is institutional approval. 2.01f is one that ensures that anything that should be disclosed to
law enforcement is then disclosed which in this case is the behavior of Aiden. 3.04 is to make
sure that no matter the choice of Dr. Yeung she still avoids harming her patients. 4.01, 4.02, and
4.05 is all about confidentiality. While Dr. Yeung does tell law enforcement about the issues of
her client, she still refrains from breaking any confidentiality guidelines. 8.01 is where Dr. Yeung
did get approval to move on in her psychological research. Another standard that could apply is
4.06 consultations, this can allow Dr. Yeung to get a different perspective from her colleagues in
what to do in this situation while keeping confidentiality.
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?
The way Dr. Yeung could resolve this dilemma is by applying standard code 3.09 and 4.05.
Seeking someone who is more knowledgeable on this subject code help with the resolution.
Utilitarianism is the best theory for this situation. “An “act utilitarian” makes an ethical decision
by the consequences of an act for a given situation” (Fisher,2017). This meaning that Dr. Yeung
can make her decision by weighing out all the possible consequences.
7.What steps should Dr. Yeung take to implement her decision and monitor its effect?
Following the ethics code 3.04, not cause harm, is the main thing that Dr. Yeung should do in
order to ethically implement her decision. Confidentiality and law should be what sets Dr.
Yeung’s limits as well as should be the driving factor when it comes to her participants harming
themselves or others. Which should then be reported. A referral would be best for Aiden in order
to get him someone that is qualified and trained to help in this area of abuse and violence.
References:
Fisher, C. B. (2017).
Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists
(4th Ed.)
SAGE Publications.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help