Prescribing Stimulants in College Populations: Clinical and Ethical Challenges

Darby, William Connor; Weinstock, Robert

doi:10.2174/2210676608666180112141022

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…considerations favoring one action against considerations opposing the action). The ranking and priority of opposing duties and principles is dependent on the particular role of the psychiatrist and specific contextual factors (i.e., a treatment role, a research role, or a forensic role) (Darby & Weinstock, 2018a, 2018bWeinstock, 2015).…”

Section: Ethics Framework As Applied To Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When using dialectical principlism, one identifies the relevant ethic duties and principles, prioritizes them based on role (i.e., ranks their importance in that situation relative to one another), and balances them (i.e., weighs the ethics considerations favoring one action against considerations opposing the action). The ranking and priority of opposing duties and principles is dependent on the particular role of the psychiatrist and specific contextual factors (i.e., a treatment role, a research role, or a forensic role) (Darby & Weinstock, 2018a, 2018b; Weinstock, 2015). Importantly, this approach does not compete with other forensic ethics models but rather distinguishes itself by helping the practitioner establish a hierarchy of ethics considerations.…”

Section: Ethics Framework As Applied To Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media

MacIntyre,

Sones,

et al. 2024

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing use of social media in forensic mental health evaluations will lead to new challenges that must be resolved by forensic practitioners and the legal system. One such dilemma is the discovery of information that would typically trigger a legal duty and professional ethics obligation for mental health professionals to breach doctor‐patient confidentiality to promote public safety and prevent harm to vulnerable third parties. Although the law and professional organizations offer clear guidance for practitioners in the treatment role, there is currently no clarity from the law or instruction from professional organizations on what mental health professionals should do if they discover such information during a confidential forensic evaluation. For example, a forensic evaluator may find evidence on social media of an evaluee’s threats to seriously harm others, abuse of children and the elderly, or severely impaired driving. There are no clear guidelines for how a forensic psychiatrist should respond in these complicated situations. We review the legal concepts and historical evolution of confidentiality, privilege, and mandated reporter duties that forensic practitioners should consider in these legally ambiguous situations. Finally, we discuss ethics frameworks practitioners can implement to determine their most ethical course of action when faced with such dilemmas.

show abstract

Section: Ethics Framework As Applied To Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%