Ethical Issues in Third-Party Disclosure inAtkinsCases

Abstract

The current paper addresses the ethical dilemmas presented in terms of informed consent and disclosing confidentiality to third-party informants in Atkins cases. The conundrum is that of balancing appropriate disclosure with the potential for undue bias on the part of the respondent. Although aspirational in nature, there are substantial limitations and a problematic lack of guidance in the provisions of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. Informal feedback from practicing psychologists with experience in this area was elicited with regard to their approach to disclosure. Responses varied and were seemingly dependent upon their professional experience. A review of the relevant literature and directions for future research are discussed with an emphasis on suggestions for practice. The authors suggest that prioritization and open dialogue can serve to appropriately direct professional practice toward an appropriate balancing of goals.

Adult ADHD assessment: An integrated clinical-forensic perspective.

“…Of course, informant reports are not infallible. Examinees may prompt collateral informants to corroborate inaccurate self-reports (Rogers, 2008), and knowing the reason for the evaluation may elicit biased reports from the informant before any questions are ever asked (Wood & Brodsky, 2015). To address these problems, forensic psychologists recommend consulting multiple informants from different settings in the client's life (Tassé, 2009) and judging informant reports against objective historical records.…”