An Ethical Dilemma By Mary Ann Orcutt, PhD, <strong>OP</strong>A Ethics Committee Member Below is a real-life situation that a psychologist has found him/herself in. What would you do Judge for yourself what parts are ethical/unethical, and whether the psychology law allowed for his/her behavior before reading ahead. A psychologist treats a man and his 3-year-old son in assisting the son to cope with the mother’s mental illness, dealing with the son’s general adjustment to their visitation and promoting a relationship between the mother and her son. <strong>The</strong> father is the residential parent, although the mother also has full parental rights. Treatment of the son and the father continues for one year, including some contact with the paternal grandmother. <strong>The</strong> parents are embroiled in a domestic relations dispute over custody and visitation. <strong>The</strong> psychologist develops suspicions that the child is at risk of abuse, including possible sexual abuse, while under the care of the mother and the mother’s family. 1) <strong>The</strong> psychologist faxes a statement to county family services relating suspicions, such as the risk of possible abuse, and by whom. 2) <strong>The</strong> psychologist, two months later, faxes another statement to the same agency restating concerns about the welfare of the child when in the custody of the mother and her family. 3) Six months later, the psychologist faxes a third statement to the same agency stating she has continued concerns about the son, and that the child has made statements that have alarmed the psychologist. 4) <strong>The</strong> first two letters also were faxed to the father and the father’s attorney. <strong>The</strong> psychologist knew that there was pending litigation relative to parental visitation/custody. 5) <strong>The</strong> psychologist testified as a treating psychologist that visitation between the child and the mother should be under supervision. What is ethical/unethical, legal, illegal regarding what the psychologist did Numbers 1-3 are appropriate, ethical, legal and necessary, as it was reporting suspected abuse to the proper authorities in the county. Number 4 blurred the psychologist’s role between being a treating psychologist and being a forensic evaluator providing visitation recommendations to the father’s attorney, and was therefore unethical and illegal in <strong>Ohio</strong>. Number 5: Formal testimony was given without sufficient information about the mother or the residents in her home. <strong>The</strong> psychologist based the opinion only on observations of the child and interviews with paternal family members. <strong>The</strong> psychologist had never met the mother or any member of her household. <strong>The</strong> formal testimony reflected a lack of fundamental or reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional standards of care that govern the participation of psychological experts in legal proceedings. Unethical and illegal under psychology law in <strong>Ohio</strong>. So what happened This case was reported to the State Board of Psychology. <strong>The</strong> psychologist was found to be in violation of: 1) being negligent in the practice of psychology, as the psychologists’ professional practice clearly fell below the standards of acceptable practice, and hurt the welfare of the client, and 2) practicing in an area of psychology for which the person is clearly untrained or incompetent. <strong>The</strong> psychologist did not limit him/herself to the specialty areas in which s/he had specific training and competence. In addition, the psychologist was issued a reprimand by the State Board. <strong>The</strong> psychologist had to take additional continuing education regarding psychological services to family and children in the context of parenting, visitation and custody, which was over and above the required amount to maintain a license. <strong>The</strong> consent agreement with the Board is a public record, and the following people received written notice of the reprimand: 1) the <strong>Association</strong> of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) 2) <strong>Ohio</strong> licensees receiving any newsletter issued by the Board 3) individuals/organizations who have requested formal notification of Board actions 4) the Healthcare Integrity Protection Data Bank 5) the psychologist’s social security number is released to the ASPPB Disciplinary Data Bank and other organizations that are legally required to request it for tracking and monitoring purposes. All of the notification in the last bullet point can be extremely damaging if one wishes to stay on managed care panels, hospital staffs, transfer one’s license from one state to another and obtain future malpractice insurance, thus that is most painful part of the reprimand. JUNE <strong>2005</strong> 8
<strong>OP</strong>A REVIEW 9
Change language