从发帖到保护:关于法医精神病学家和基于社交媒体的警告义务的伦理考虑。

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Behavioral Sciences & the Law Pub Date : 2024-02-22 DOI:10.1002/bsl.2647
Michael R. MacIntyre, Alexander C. Sones, Jesse Li, William C. Darby, Robert Weinstock
{"title":"从发帖到保护:关于法医精神病学家和基于社交媒体的警告义务的伦理考虑。","authors":"Michael R. MacIntyre,&nbsp;Alexander C. Sones,&nbsp;Jesse Li,&nbsp;William C. Darby,&nbsp;Robert Weinstock","doi":"10.1002/bsl.2647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47926,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Sciences & the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bsl.2647","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media\",\"authors\":\"Michael R. MacIntyre,&nbsp;Alexander C. Sones,&nbsp;Jesse Li,&nbsp;William C. Darby,&nbsp;Robert Weinstock\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bsl.2647\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Sciences & the Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bsl.2647\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Sciences & the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.2647\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Sciences & the Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.2647","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在法医心理健康评估中越来越多地使用社交媒体将带来新的挑战,法医从业人员和法律系统必须解决这些挑战。其中一个难题是,如果发现了一些信息,精神卫生专业人员通常会承担法律责任和职业道德义务,违反医患保密原则,以促进公共安全,防止对弱势第三方造成伤害。尽管法律和专业组织为从事治疗工作的从业人员提供了明确的指导,但目前法律和专业组织都没有明确规定,如果心理健康专业人员在保密的法医评估过程中发现了此类信息,他们应该怎么做。例如,法医评估人员可能会在社交媒体上发现被评估者威胁要严重伤害他人、虐待儿童和老人或严重违规驾驶的证据。在这些复杂的情况下,法医精神病学家应该如何应对,目前还没有明确的指导方针。我们回顾了法医从业者在这些法律上模棱两可的情况下应该考虑的保密、特权和法定报告人职责的法律概念和历史演变。最后,我们讨论了从业人员在面临此类困境时可以采用的伦理框架,以确定他们最符合伦理的行动方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
50
期刊最新文献
Survey of change-of-venue motions in appellate court transcripts of murder trials (2000-2020): Which factors make a difference? Are risk assessment tools more accurate than unstructured judgments in predicting violent, any, and sexual offending? A meta-analysis of direct comparison studies. Poly-bullying victimisation in Indonesia: Prevalence and factors related to children exposure to multiple bullying incidents, and its correlation to subjective well-being. Issue Information Parental involvement in school and school victimization in Taiwan: The mediating role of quality of student-teacher relationships.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1