Special perspective: An immodest proposal: should treating mental health professionals be barred from testifying about their patients?

Autor:	W J D Daniel Shuman, William E. Foote, Stuart A. Greenberg, Kirk Heilbrun
Rok vydání:	1998
Předmět:	medicine.medical_specialty Psychotherapist Conflict of interest Poison control Patient advocacy Mental health Suicide prevention Psychiatry and Mental health Clinical Psychology Forensic psychology Forensic psychiatry medicine Psychology Law Reimbursement
Zdroj:	Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 16:509-523
ISSN:	1099-0798 0735-3936
DOI:	10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199823)16:4<509::aid-bsl324>3.0.co;2-y
Popis:	Notwithstanding ethical rules that address therapeutic and forensic role conflicts for psychologists and psychiatrists, overzealous patient advocacy by therapists, tightened reimbursement for therapy, and a growth market for forensic psychology and psychiatry, have led many therapists to appear willingly as forensic experts on behalf of their patients. Existing ethical rules, as well as other proposed approaches to address this problem, assume that it can be resolved by modest changes in existing practice that permit therapists to testify as long as their testimony avoids psycholegal opinions. This essay questions whether these modest changes can adequately address this problem and advances consideration of a more radical proposal to address this problem, prohibiting therapists from testifying about their patients.
Databáze:	OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:	https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_________::620ac9550d8f98c48cb6c0f50948b1c1 https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199823)16:4<509::aid-bsl324>3.0.co Zobrazit plný text záznamu Plný text ve formátu PDF