There are lots of topics here that are relevant for this forum. One of my favorites is whether or not psychiatrists and other mental health professionals should offer expert opinions in legal matters (such as custody cases) and also be (or become) treating clinicians for a litigant. The answer, reiterated in the Association ethical principles/guidelines for both psychologists and psychiatrists, is a pretty clear "no." In order to understand that issue, one needs to understand a few nuances of the forensic world, such as the difference between "fact" testimony (things one knows directly, such as clinical data from treatment) and "opinion" or expert testimony. The former is what we all see on TV when witnesses answer the question "what did you see?" or "what did he say?" The latter is special, and requires a witness qualified and authorized by the judge to go beyond what he/she directly experienced. Expert witnesses should be free of conflicts of interest to the extent feasible. If they have been treating the litigant, or later become a treating clinician, they are rightfully considered biased by the court, since a treatment relationship creates a strong duty to act only in the patient's interest (and thus interferes with the witness's ability to be objective in court). That doesn't mean treating clinicians can't be called to testify, but rather that their testimony should be considered in a particular way by the court and (perhaps most important) that their testimony interferes with (current or future) treatment, and vice versa. There are situations in which it is difficult to adhere to strict separation of treating and evaluating (expert) clinicians (such as a need to commit a patient for involuntary care, or help a patient apply for disability benefits). This almost never applies to divorce/custody cases. There are two summary discussions of "treating physician vs. expert witness" on the main page of my website, at www.psychandlaw.org, as well as at least one article in the "Columns" section. All this boils down to the general point that psychiatrists and psychologists should not treat people about whom they testify as experts in divorce/custody cases. Your comment that the psychiatrist was pressured by the possibility that you might tell the lawyer doesn't make sense to me. Both you and the clinician had (and have) lots of choices in the matter. I expect the therapist in such matters to choose wisely, even when the potential patient is insistent (without implying here that you were insistent yourself).
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.