首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law >Dual Agency and Ethics Conflicts in Correctional Practice: Sources and Solutions
【24h】

Dual Agency and Ethics Conflicts in Correctional Practice: Sources and Solutions

机译:矫正实践中的双重代理与伦理冲突:来源与解决方案

获取原文
       

摘要

Psychiatrists working in corrections, particularly in areas that have a shortage of forensic practitioners, may encounter a variety of ethics-related conflicts, especially when working both as clinicians and forensic evaluators within smaller systems. Such conflicts may include unavoidable dual treating and forensic evaluator relationships, and awareness of information that may complicate patient treatment or influence forensic opinions. Additional conflicts may arise if the psychiatrist is also retained privately to conduct forensic evaluations involving inmates in the same facility or facilities where the psychiatrist is otherwise employed, specifically because he may have duties to both a retaining party and an employer. Early-career psychiatrists, those who are completing their training in forensic psychiatry, and general psychiatrists who practice in corrections may be unfamiliar with the ethics-related dilemmas that arise in jails or prisons. Ethics courses during medical school and residency, while required, rarely discuss dilemmas specific to correctional settings. Furthermore, many psychiatrists practicing in corrections do not undergo formal training in forensic psychiatry, and even among different fellowship programs, the amount of time devoted to corrections varies significantly. The authors discuss hypothetical cases that reflect situations encountered, particularly by psychiatric fellows, forensic psychiatrists new to correctional work, and nonforensic clinicians working in corrections, a setting where dual agency is common and at times in conflict with core principles of ethics, including beneficence, nonmaleficence, neutrality, objectivity, and justice.
机译:从事矫正工作的精神科医生,尤其是在法医从业人员短缺的地区,可能会遇到各种与道德相关的冲突,尤其是在较小的系统中同时担任临床医生和法医评估员时。此类冲突可能包括不可避免的双重对待和法医评估人员之间的关系,以及对可能使患者治疗变得复杂或影响法医意见的信息的意识。如果精神病医生还被私下聘用,在与精神病医生相同的一个或多个设施中对囚犯进行法医评估,则可能会产生其他冲突,特别是因为他可能同时对监护人和雇主负有责任。职业生涯早期的精神科医生,正在接受法医精神病学培训的人员以及从事矫正工作的普通精神科医生可能不熟悉监狱或监狱中与道德相关的难题。在医学院和住院医师期间,伦理课程虽然必不可少,但很少讨论特定于教养环境的难题。此外,许多从事矫正工作的精神科医生没有接受过法医精神病学的正式培训,即使在不同的研究金计划之间,投入矫正的时间也有很大差异。作者讨论了一些假想案例,这些案例反映出所遇到的情况,尤其是精神科医师,刚从事矫正工作的法医精神病学家和从事矫正工作的非法医临床医生所遇到的情况,在这种情况下,双重代理很常见,有时与包括道德在内的道德核心原则相冲突,非恶意,中立,客观和公正。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号