This case presents multiple ethical issues. Although it may be argued that the inmate was moved from suicide watch to ensure his beneficence, the warden’s decision to place the inmate in non-segregated housing first may have harmed the inmates overall ability to do well (American Psychological Association, 2012).
The inmate alleges that one of the staff members made verbal and sexual threats against the inmate while the inmate was previously placed on suicide watch. If these threats prove true, they would be a violation of principle C (professional and scientific responsibility) (American Psychological Association, 2012). Furthermore, these threats would constitute a violation of principle D, in the fact that the guard is failing to respect the rights and dignity of the inmate. However, the veracity of this information is another factor that needs to be considered. The inmate is currently alleging that the staff member made these allegations. Despite this notion, the inmate provides personal information that he has obtained from the guard. If this inmate did receive this information from the guard, it is a violation of the forensic psychologists autonomy, as the guard has no right to discuss this information with the inmate.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Ethical Principles of Psychologists".
The inmate’s threat to consume a handful of pills presents a difficult situation. From one perspective, “forensic psychologists have an obligation to provide services in a manner consistent with the highest standards of their profession” (American Psychological Association, 2012, p. 4). The inability talk to the inmate would indefinitely limit the standard of care that the inmate is receiving. Whether or not the inmate has crossed a line is debatable. There is no direct information that the inmate obtained the personal information about the clinician on his own. If the inmate attained this information on his own, he would have crossed a line. However, clients are not responsible for upholding ethical principles.
Until there is more information as to how the inmate gained this personal information the clinician should go see him. Although the clinician may not want to see the inmate, given the circumstances, the clinician has been treating the patient. Therefore, the clinician has the responsibility to look out for the inmate’s beneficence (Goldstein, 2006). Furthermore, clinicians are bound to ethical principles outlined by the American Psychological Association. If the clinician chooses not to see the inmate, the clinician would be violating ethical principle E (concern for the welfare of others). In the future, if the clinician determines that the inmate has obtained the personal information on his own, the clinician may decide to discontinue treatment with the inmate. Under these circumstances, the inmate would be referred to a different forensic psychologist at the facility for treatment.
- http://www.apa.org/e
- Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2012) Retrieved from: Goldstein A.M. (2006) Forensic Psychology: Emerging Topics and Expanding Roles. New York: Pearsons.
- Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2012) Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/
