Contemporary and Ethical Issues in Psychology Assignment | Homework Help Websites

PSY-510 Contemporary and Ethical Issues in Psychology

Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect

Week 5 assignment is another case study from the textbook, and no rubric has been provided. I have included a scoring guide, similar to week 4, below.

PLEASE be sure your name and the dateis on the top of the template, if you choose not to use a title page. Please save the work as a Word document in the following manner: Last name_firstname_Week 5_PSY 510

There are 7 questions. Be sure to answer each part of each question completely. Please review all aspects of the Tarasoff case and rulings that pertain to psychologists’ ethical responsibilities, and the duty to protect statute. See textbook.

With regard to question # 1, in addition to a description of the nature of the dilema, be sure to identify the Principles (A through E) that you believe are in conflict in this dilemma; there may be more than 2. (Remember the distinction between the Principles and the Standards that we reviewed in earlier discussions). Also see Fisher.

For Q# 2, about stakeholders, see Fisher. Remember to include the main character in this list and every person or agency whose interest could be at stake. (THINK BIG!)

For the remainder of the questions, cite specific ethical standards to support your conclusions. Aspects of Standards 2, 3, 4 and 8 should be addressed.

Consider citing and referencing the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct in this assignment. See: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

One of the ethical issues involved is the risk management competencies of research psychologists.

For the last question, be sure to review the steps of ethical decision making in the textbook.

These steps shouldl be individually addressed in the final question!

SCORING GUIDE:

Questions # 1, 3, 4, 6, & 7-up to 6 ponts each

Question #5-up to 12 points

Questions 2 -up to 8 points.

Final grade will be a percentage of 100.

I would like to provide a review of some important sections of the textbook to consider:

1. The nature of an ethical dilemma involves 2 or more APA Principles in conflict (in a matter that must be resolved).
2. Stakeholders: consider any and all persons or entities that could hold a stake in the resolution of the issue; see Fisher, p. 46.
3. Ethical Theories- see Fisher, pp. 38-42
4. 6 Steps of Ethical Decision Making- review Fisher, pp. 46-50.

Please post any questions about assignments or course content in the QTI forum.

Best regards,

Directions: In a minimum of 50 words, for each question, thoroughly answer each of the questions below regarding Case 4: Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect. Use one to two scholarly resources to support your answers. Use in-text citations, when appropriate, according to APA formatting.

Read Case 4: Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect on pages 435-436 in your textbook. Once you have read the case study completely, answer the discussion questions found in the attached document “Case 4” under the assignment tab

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?

References:

434 Decoding the Ethics Code

Gallardo, M. E., Johnson, J., Parham, T. A., & Carter, J. A. (2009). Ethics and multicultural-ism: Advancing cultural and clinical responsiveness. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 425–435.Vasquez, M. (2012).

Social justice and civic virtue. In S. Knapp, M. Gottlieb, M. Handelsman, & L. VandeCreek (Eds.), Handbook of ethics in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75–98). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Zerr, A., & Pina, A. (2014). Predictors of initial engagement in child anxiety mental health specialty services. Child & Youth Care Forum, 2, 151–164.Case 3. Request for Services Following Termination

Dr. Howard Lightfoot, a psychologist in independent practice, works in a small, rural town in New Mexico. He treated Mary for a year, helping her with depression and anxiety related to her conflicting feelings about her lesbian sexual orientation. At the time of treatment termination, Mary’s depression and anxiety were reduced, and she had begun to have positive dating experiences with other women.Three years after termination of the therapy, Dr. Lightfoot receives a voice mail from Mary. She states that a month ago Allison, her partner of 2 years, was diagnosed with breast cancer. At that time, Mary became depressed and anxious again and started psychotherapy with another therapist because Dr. Lightfoot was no longer on the list of health providers covered by her insurance plan. She then ended the therapy because the new therapist appeared to have no understanding of the real-world challenges faced by lesbian couples.Mary tells Dr. Lightfoot that Allison has also begun to experience a great deal of anxiety and would like to begin psychotherapy with someone she can trust is sensitive to lesbian issues. Since Allison’s insurance plan would cover Dr. Lightfoot’s services for individual therapy and Mary’s participation as caretaker and collateral support, she is calling to ask whether he would consider treating Allison.Ethical DilemmaBased on his previous professional relationship with Mary and Allison’s current personal relationship with Mary, Dr. Lightfoot is unsure whether or not he should agree to see Allison for psychotherapy.Discussion Questions1. 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. Lightfoot resolves this dilemma?3. How should the nature of Mary’s mental health problems when she was in treatment with Dr. Lightfoot, the amount of time that has passed since Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to ProtectDr. 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 ecoding the Ethics Codethrough 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.Ethical DilemmaDr. 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.Discussion Questions1. 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 ReadingsAppelbaum, P., & Rosenbaum, A. (1989). Tarasoff and the researcher: Does the duty to pro-tect apply in the research setting? American Psychologist, 44(6), 885–894.Fisher, C. B. (2011). Addiction research ethics and the Belmont principles: Do drug users have a different moral voice?