Question

Dr. Daniela Yeung, a health psychologist, has been conducting a federally funded ethnographic study of couples in which the male partner has been paroled following conviction and imprisonment for intimate partner violence (IPV). Over the course of a year, she has had individual monthly interviews with 25 couples while one partner was in jail and following their release. Aiden is a 35-year-old male parolee convicted of seriously injuring his wife. He and his wife, Maya, have 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 wife when he becomes drunk, usually in the evening. To her knowledge, Aiden has never followed through on these threats. Dr. Yeung has the impression both Aiden and Maya feel a sense of social support when discussing their 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." She calls both Aiden’s and Maya’s cell phone numbers, but no one answers. Dr. Yeung has Aiden’s address, and after 2 hours, she is considering whether or not to contact emergency services to suggest that law enforcement officers go to Aiden’s home or to the homes of his parents and girlfriend.
1) Does this situation meet the standards set by the Tarasoff decision’s "duty to protect" statute ? 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

2) 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)?

3) 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?

4) What steps should Dr. Yeung take to implement her decision and monitor its effect?

Answer 1

Answer:

1) This situation is out of the standard set by Tarasoff decision’s duty to protect because the situation is severe and Dr. Yeung should not rely on probability. This could be possible that Aiden was trying to threaten Dr. Yeung and demanding no interference in his personal life. Dr. Yeung is a health psychologist but as a psychologist, she could understand the seriousness of the situation so she must call the professional support. Dr. Yeung should refer this case to the clinical psychologist and provide support to them about the health and behavior conditions.

2) Ethically, Dr. Yeung’s decision may affect the research purpose but morally her decision may help a person who needs it. The decision of Dr. Yeung was exceptional so it must be considered as an exceptional condition.

3) Dr. Yeung should consult the clinical psychologist and psychiatrists before handling this type of case. Dr. Yeung was not assigned to handle abnormal behavior problems and therapies, she could have handled the situation as an exceptional condition and with the help of team support.

4) Dr. Yeung should consider this case as health and abnormal behavior problem rather than a general condition. The behavior of Aiden was destructive and it should be analyzed with the help of security agencies, medical practitioner, psychologist and psychiatric. Dr. Yeung tried to done her job well but her lack of experience could have threaten her and patient’s life. I think, Dr. Yeung should demand professional help and experienced services.