Ethical Dilemmas in the Field of Forensic Psychology - Research Paper Example

Ethical Dilemmas in the Field of Forensic Psychology 1. Ethics and its dimensions Ethics is about the character of an individual. It may examine the conduct and moral decision making; which could involve judgments that are based on specific culture and society. In the field of Forensic Psychology, a psychologist is guided by the Ethical Principles and a Code of Conduct which is published by the American Psychological Association. In addition, to the Code of Ethics, guidelines developed by many professional associations were designated to be followed by psychologists. The Principles of the APA Ethics Code consists of 5 Principles which are: Beneficence and Nonmale ficence, Fidelity and Responsibility, Integrity, Justice, and Respect for Peoples’ Rights and Dignity (Behnke, 2004). 2. Ethical dilemmas in forensic psychology At times when the psychologists attempt in combining work in forensic capacity there generates a series of ethical dilemmas. Ethical dilemmas in which Forensic psychologists may experience are conflict of relationship, confidentiality, lack of payment, concerns about trainings, research, conduct of colleagues, sexual issues, questionable or harmful interventions, competence, ethnicity, and publishing; which are to state a few. The ethical dilemmas for Forensic Psychologist have been identified by the American Psychological Association. 2.1 Confidentiality Confidentiality is a major dilemma for a psychologist as he or she may not break the client-therapist confidentiality, which could raise conflict and risk. Issues that could cause dilemmas could be related to admitting of a serious or violent crime, child abuse or elderly abuse; however the confidentiality is still in force which causes the dilemma for the psychologist. The psychologists working directly with legal systems are directed by guidelines drawn up by the American Psychology-Law Society and the Forensic Psychology. These rules provide guidance to the forensic psychologists in the process of monitoring their professional conduct while acting in assistance to the courts, parties to legal proceedings, correctional settings, forensic mental health facilities, legislative agencies and so on. But taking of the right decision is a complicated phenomenon as the principles as specified by the ethics codes which may stand in the way of conflict with the psychologist’s legal responsibilities. One of the most explicit illustrations of the dilemma is associated with the ethical obligation of confidentiality as compared to the legal duty towards warning the potential victims of the client’s threats. These ethical dilemmas are common for all the psychologists working in the legal system but they are felt most accurately by the applied scientists, experts, witnesses, policy evaluators as well as the advocates. Achieving objectivity is not an easy job. From the perspectives of the jury, the psychologists are often found as an advocate rather than as an unbiased scientist. Regardless of this perception, psychologists when asked towards testifying possess an ethical responsibility to be candid and explicit with the court about his or her opinions. But still the psychologists may be tempted towards sympathizing with the side that has employed them. This sympathy may not be even conscious and instead the psychologists may be simply filtering the facts of the case through different perceptions motivated by a spirit of helpfulness to his or her client. Ethical dilemmas also emerge when the adversary system forces an expert to make absolute judgments. The questions relate to that of the pretrial publicity caused potential jurors to be biased against the defendant. Or in terms of a custody case emerging from a divorce stating which parents would be better for the child for living with. Questions also emerge whether evaluation of a defendant indicate that whether he or she is insane or not. In all of these circumstances there is a rigorous requirement of law which requires the psychologists in reaching a robust conclusion depending on the witness regardless the ambiguity in the evidence (Heilbrun et al, 2007, pp. 20-21). 2.2 Child abuse Child abuse reporting is an area where the behavior of the psychologists may deviate and face various ethical dilemmas. In case of child abuse the forensic psychologist may evaluate the damage which are done to the victims or also evaluate the truthfulness of the testimony of the children. From the studies of Pope and Bajt in the year 1988 with survey of around 60 senior psychologists stated that for the purpose of exploring the times when a psychologist intentionally broke law or that of formal ethical principles. For only 4 out of 83 items the psychologists tend towards supporting reports that they are engaged in such a behavior that has been viewed as ethically questionable. Around 77% of theorists believe that psychologists will be violating formal legal as well as ethical standards for the purpose of client welfare or some other values (Petridis, Pichorides & Varopoulos, 1980, p.83). 2.3 Conflict of relationship Another most common ethical dilemma within the domain of forensic practice is that of confusion among the role of treating the psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrist and the role of a psychiatrist in a given case. There have been indications in the ethical guidelines that treatment of the psychiatrist shall be directed towards avoiding evaluations of their patients for legal purposes. This is because a forensic evaluation requires that other people would be interviewed and that the testimony may negatively affect the therapeutic relationship. Studies of Strasburger and his colleagues in the year 1997 stated that fundamental incompatibilities exists between the clinical and legal functions of a psychotherapist and that the psychiatrists and psychotherapists will not be serving simultaneously in the roles of a therapist and that of a forensic evaluator. In the attempt of serving both of the functions on a simultaneous basis there often results in serving neither one in an adequate manner as the psychotherapy can be compromised within the service of forensic evaluation. The forensic evaluation may be compromised through the therapeutic component of relationship between the evaluee and the patient. 2.4 Personality disorder The other ethical dilemma is that of the personality disorder which is very common within the patients as well as the prisoners within the forensic settings, both in the mental and correctional settings. There have been also difficulties in treating the personality disorder. The people with personality disorders are not by themselves capable of recognizing. Even in the cases they recognize the condition may be preventing them with the engagement of the services set up for detaining as well as treating them. Intensified attrition rates, problems in authority as well as that of enhanced levels of staff burn out led to the perception that the offenders having personality disorders are untreatable. As a result of this there exists a real risk in that they will be excluded from the treatment. The psychologists in the process of training are highly required towards examining the ethical codes in association with their work. But these can attribute little towards assisting them at times when faced with different ethical dilemmas occurring in practice (Shuker, 2011). There exists a multiple relationship when a forensic practitioner exists within a professional role with a person who is in a different role with the same person being involved personally, in fiscal or in any other relationship with an adverse party. This may also occur in a relationship with an individual closely associated or related to the person with whom the forensic practitioner possesses professional relationship. This may also take place in an offer or agreement towards entering into another relationship in the future with the person being closely associated or related to the person. The forensic practitioners also recognize that potential interest conflicts as well as threats to objectivity are inherent within multiple relationships. The forensic practitioners recognize that some of the personal as well as professional relationships may stand in the way of interfering with their ability towards practicing in a competent and objective manner seeking towards minimizing any detrimental effects through avoiding the involvement in such matters whenever feasible or that of limiting their assistance in a way which is consistent with professional obligations (Specialty Guidelines for forensic psychology, 2008, p.9). 3. Conclusion The paper discusses the ethical dilemmas in forensic psychology with respect to various areas like that of confidentiality, child abuse, relationship conflict and that of personal disorder. The provision of forensic as well as psychological services towards same individual or that of closely associated individuals is regarded as a multiple relationship that may jeopardize the objectivity and cause exploitation or that of other harm. Thus at times when requested there will be provision of either concurrent or sequential forensic as well as beneficial services. The forensic practitioner discloses the potential risk and also makes reasonable efforts towards referring the request to some other qualified provider. If there is no possibility of referral then the forensic practitioners incorporates the risks and benefits to all the parties, legal system or entity. This practice is to be implemented with separation of each service over time with judicial review. In determining fees of the foreign practitioner there may be consideration of salient factors like that of experience which provide service, time and labor necessary, the novelty and difficulty of different questions involved, skills necessary for performing the service, the fees which is customarily charged for similar type of forensic services etc. This comes with the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will also direct towards other delegations. But this is also restricted by limitations imposed by the clients or circumstances related with the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. References Behnke, S, (2004), APA's new Ethics Code, its values and excellence in psychological services. Available at < http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/ethics.aspx> accessed on February 23, 2013 Specialty Guidelines for forensic psychology, (2008). Available at, < http://www.ap-ls.org/aboutpsychlaw/92908sgfp.pdf> accessed on February 23, 2013 Shuker, R, (2011). Ethical issues within forensic psychology: applications, dilemmas and challenges. Available at accessed on February 23, 2013 Heilbrun et al, (2007), Wrightsman's Psychology And the Legal System, Cengage Learning Read More