Reference no: EM133996407

Case Study:

Dr. Daniela Yeung, a health psychologist, has been conducting a federally funded ethnographic study of couples in which the male partner has been imprisoned for intimate partner violence. Over the course of a year, she has had eight individual monthly interviews with 25 couples while one partner was in jail and following the partner's release on probation. Aiden is a 35-year-old male parolee convicted of seriously injuring Maya, his wife. The interviews with both Maya and Aiden have covered a range of personal topics including Aiden's problem drinking, which is marked by blackouts and threatening phone calls made to his wife when he becomes drunk, usually in the evening. Based on the interviews, to her knowledge, Aiden has never followed through on these threats. Dr. Yeung has the impression she has established relationships of trust with both Aiden and Maya. One evening Dr. Yeung checks her answering machine and finds a message from Aiden. His words are slurred and angry: "Now that you know the truth about what I am, you know that there is nothing you can do to help the evil inside me. The bottle is my savior, and I will end this with them tonight." She calls both Aiden's and Maya's cell phone numbers, but no one answers. Dr. Yeung has Aiden's address, and after 2 hours, she is considering whether or not to contact emergency services to suggest that law enforcement officers go to Aiden's home or to Maya's home.

Question 

1. Explain why this an ethical dilemma is. Identify which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma.

2. Identify who the stakeholders are and how will they be affected by how Dr. Yeung resolves this dilemma.

3. Discuss whether or not this situation meets the standards set by the Tarasoff Duty to Protect statute (see Chapter 8). Dr. Yeung has an important decision to make, as a psychologist who knows the importance of protecting confidentiality and as a researcher who knows the responsibility to protect both herself and the research participants. Discuss how Dr. Yeung's decision might be influenced by whether or not her state (e.g. Arizona) includes researchers within the Duty to Protect statute's influence.

4. Discuss whether or not Dr. Yeung should consider how her decisions may affect the completion of her research (e.g., the confidentiality concerns of other participants) in addressing this dilemma.

5. Discuss how APA Ethical Standards 2.01f, 3.04, 3.06, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 8.01 are relevant to this case. Identify which other standards might apply.

6. Identify Dr. Yeung's ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma. Discuss which alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders. Identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 4) guiding your decision.

7. Identify what steps Dr. Yeung should take to implement her decision and monitor its effect.