I agree generally with Ed, but would point out that there are circumstances in which psychiatrists/psychologists can and/or should share information with others (e.g., when there is reason to believe significant danger exists, or when the evaluator is clearly identified as not being the agent of the evaluee and some rule -- known to both -- requires disclosure [such as a rule about disclosing plans to escape]). I understand you mentioned "treating," but the main topic could be more related to "evaluation." U.S. ethics in both psychology and psychiatry require that _arrestees_ not be seen for a forensic evaluation purpose before they have counsel (or have competently waived same). I understand that some Guantanamo _detainees_ have not been afforded that courtesy, ostensibly for security or technical reasons. On the other hand, it is ethical to treat arrestees before counsel is appointed; laws vary about how information gotten may or may not be used, often depending on whether the person knowingly volunteered it or deliriously blurted it out. The concept of therapeutic confidentiality arises from the clinician-patient relationship, of course. If there is no clinical relationship (such as in most forensic evaluations), then there is probably no clinical duty of confidentiality (although there may be other kinds). And when there is dual agency (such as when treating prisoners, in which case one has duties to both the patient and the institution), that dual agency should be understood and agreed-to before one begins work.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.