Introduction
Intimate partner violence is the aggression or abuse that occurs in a relationship between partners that could include a person one is dating and a former spouse. Intimate partner violence can vary from how severe or how often it occurs. It can be from a single incident that led to severe minor episodes that could happen for a few years. Behaviors that accompany intimate partner violence include physical abuse, sexual abuse, stalking, or psychological aggression. When intimate partner violence takes place in adolescence, it is referred to as teen dating violence. Intimate partner violence is among current significant health and psychological issue affecting a vast number of people every year, which leads to significant physical injuries and sometimes leading to death (Roberts, 2018). Other impacts that have been identified to be caused by intimate partner violence include heart conditions, reproductive, digestive, bone, and muscle problems. Other victims suffer from mental issues such as post-trauma stress disorder and depression. The paper discusses the case study on intimate partner violence and duty to protect.
Why is the Case Study an Ethical Dilemma?
The ethical dilemma happens when different values of ethical principles come into conflict. The solution to an ethical dilemma is determined by appealing to different values. An ethical dilemma requires identifying which values in the case is more important than the other. The case study is a moral dilemma since Dr Yeung holds private information about the client, which she considers to disclose emergency services following the message she receives from the clients. In the case study, the client has to choose which value is more important than the other. The more important value in the case study is saving the lives that could be put in danger by the client through reviewing the private details of the client to the emergency services. The APA ethical principles that help frame the nature of the dilemma in the case study include APA principle A, which takes care of beneficent and Non-maleficence (Fisher, 2016). The other APA principle helping to flame the dilemma is the APA principle E, which focuses on respecting people's rights and dignity. In the case study, the two principles conflict with each other since Dr Yeung has the responsibility to protect the rights of the family of the client by protecting them from potential violence and threat from the client. Dr Yeung also has the responsibility to protect the privacy and the dignity of the client that includes sharing the address number to the emergency service due to the threat given by the client.
Does the Situation Meet the Standards Set by the Duty to Protect Statue?
Duty to protect is a responsibility given to a psychologist or a mental health professional to warn people from potential harm from a patient or to protect a patient from self-harm. A psychologist can identify when to perform a duty to protect in case the client suggests or makes a statement that could lead to homicide or suicide (Fisher, 2016). The different ways that help to determine potential harm include if one has a special relationship with the client if the psychologist predicts the ability of potential threat or harm, when a client makes a direct threat towards a third party and when the client gives the name of the potential victim. In the case study, Dr Yeung identifies the potential risk towards the client's family since they had accompanied the patient to some of the sessions before. The law protects Dr Yeung in the duty to protect statute since she is aware of the potential harm that the client could cause following the sent message. Even though she is not a licensed clinical practitioner, Dr Yeung has the right to disclose the potential threat since she has identified the possible harm; therefore, the lack of training and license should not affect her decision towards the situation.
How are the APA Ethical Standards Relevant to the Cases
APA ethical standards are rules that psychologists both in academic and clinical practices require to follow. The standards are broad rules that guide psychologies in the various situations and domains they may encounter. Ethical standards 2.01a, b, and c are relevant to the case study since Dr Yeung is a health psychologist following legal systems in carrying out her research on the conviction and release of inmates. Dr Yeung is a community psychologist carrying out research. On 2.01a, Dr Yeung is required to ensure that she is competent to perform the given study. On 2.01b, Dr Yeungis needed to make proper referrals just if she cannot handle a particular matter. On 2.01c, she should make sure she gets the required training in performing the needed research. Standard 2.04 applies to this case study since Dr Yeung can offer her opinion to the client on how to handle and deal with the situation. Standard 3.04 applies to the case study since a threat has been identified (Fisher, 2016). 3.04 allow a psychologist to protect their client or third parties from any potential harm. Standard 3.06 applies to the case study since the doctor is prohibited from handling a case that could impair objectivity and professional role. Standard 4.01 applies to the case since Dr Yeung has to identify the limit where confidentiality of the client should not be considered. Standard 4.02 allows the psychologies to discuss the limitations of privacy with the client. Dr Yeung could discuss the limitations of confidentiality with the client to determine when certain information can be reviewed to other people. Standard 10.10 gives the psychologies the right to end the therapy in case they feel threatened by the client; following the messages received from the client, Dr Yeung has the right to terminate the research. Standard 3.09 can apply in this case; it allows a psychologist to seek advice from another psychologist to make a decision. After receiving the message from the client, Dr Yeung could ask for help from another psychologist if needed.
Alternative Ethical Ways to Resolve the Dilemma
One of the best alternatives Dr Yeung could have considered in solving the dilemma is through contacting the emergency services and also to report the issue to her supervisor. Given that the nature of the situation does not fit into her training and qualification, leaving the matter to the authority is the best-given solution. The doctor being a psychologist does not have proper or any training to handle a case that involves threatening other people's safety (Roberts, 2018). The psychologist could also have identified her failure towards the case with Aiden, and given a better recommendation of seeking help from a professional after the situation was dealt with by the authorities. Since she is protected by the law, seeking more support from the police and referring her client to a professional could not harm her career, but trying to solve the situation without seeking help could potentially harm her reputation.
Steps to Ethically Implement Decisions in the Case Study
After receiving the message from Aiden, Dr Yeung tries to contact him and some family members for 2 hours. Following her client's record of crime, the best thing Dr Yeung could have done was to contact the authority and inform them about the situation. The client has been convicted for abuse in the past, and in the message, he leaves a threatening statement that could pose a threat to the family. Since she has worked with Aiden for a while, she knows what he is capable of doing; therefore, she must think of the potential harm he is capable of causing to his family. Dr Yeung needs to contact the authority and report Aiden so that the family can be protected from any harm. After the situation is solved, she has the right to terminate the research with Aiden and refer him for further treatment.
Conclusion
Intimate partner violence is identified as a significant health and psychological issue that affects many of the society. There are different impacts caused by intimate partner violence that include physical injuries or even deaths. In the case study, an ethical dilemma is identified since more than one value conflict whereby Dr Yeung has to choose which value is more important than the other. She is required to determine if to maintain the confidential information of the client or protect the safety of those who could be harmed by the client. The duty to defend is the responsibility of every psychologist to protect either the client or a third party from any potential threat. The case study meets the requirement of duty to protect since Dr Yeung receives a threatening message from her client, which could lead to the family members of the client being hurt. There are different APA ethical standards relevant to the case study, which guides some psychologists in making different decisions. Dr Yeung could have used the alternative way to solve the dilemma by contacting the authorities since she has no proper training on dealing with a situation that involved breaking the law and threatening the lives of other people.
