Essay Grade

Case 4. Research on Intimate
Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect
Dr. Daniela Yeung, a health psychologist, has been conducting a federally funded
ethnographic study of couples in which the male partner has been paroled following
conviction and imprisonment for intimate partner violence (IPV). Over
the course of a year, she has had individual monthly interviews with 25 couples
while one partner was in jail and following their release. Aiden is a 35-year-old
male parolee convicted of seriously injuring his wife. He and his wife, Maya, have
been interviewed by Dr. Yeung on eight occasions. The interviews 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. To her knowledge, Aiden has never followed
through on these threats. Dr. Yeung has the impression both Aiden and Maya feel
a sense of social support when discussing their life with Dr. Yeung. 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.
Ethical Dilemma
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 the homes of his parents and girlfriend.
Discussion Questions
1. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame
the nature of the dilemma?
2. Who are the stakeholders, and how will they be affected by how Dr. Yeung
resolves this dilemma?
3. Does this situation meet the standards set by the Tarasoff decision’s “duty to
protect” statute (see Chapter 7)? How might whether or not Dr. Yeung’s state
includes researchers under such a statute influence Dr. Yeung’s ethical decision
making? How might the fact that Dr. Yeung is a research psychologist without
training or licensure in clinical practice influence the ethical decision?
4. In addressing this dilemma, should Dr. Yeung consider how her decision
may affect the completion of her research (e.g., the confidentiality concerns
of other participants)?
5. How are APA Ethical Standards 2.01f, 3.04, 3.06, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 8.01
relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?
6. What are Dr. Yeung’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma?
Which alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and
enforceable standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders?
Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding your
decision?
7. What steps should Dr. Yeung take to implement her decision and monitor its
effect?
Suggested Readings
Appelbaum, P., & Rosenbaum, A. (1989). Tarasoff and the researcher: Does the duty to protect
apply in the research setting? American Psychologist, 44(6), 885–894.
Fisher, C. B. (2011). Addiction research ethics and the Belmont principles: Do drug users
have a different moral voice? Substance Use & Misuse, 46(6), 728–741.
Appendix A Case Studies for Ethical Decision Making 437
Gable, L. (2009). Legal challenges raised by non-intervention research conducted under
high-risk circumstances. In D. Buchanan, C. B. Fisher, & L. Gable (Eds.). Research with
high-risk populations: Balancing science, ethics, and law (pp. 47–74). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Paavilainen, E., Lepisto, S., & Flinck, A. (2014). Ethical issues in family violence research in
healthcare settings. Nursing Ethics, 21, 43–52.
Running head: CASE STUDY WEEK 5
1
Case 5: Duty to Protect
Name
Class
GCU
Instructor
date
CASE STUDY WEEK 5
2
Case 5: Duty to Protect
Directions: In a minimum of 50 words, for each question, thoroughly answer each of the
questions below regarding Case 4: Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to
Protect. Use at least two scholarly resources to support your answers. Use in-text citations, when
appropriate, according to APA formatting.
1. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the
dilemma? (Use citation.)
2. Who are the stakeholders and how will they be affected by how Dr. Yeung resolves this
dilemma? (Use citation.)
3. Does this situation meet the standards set by the Tarasoff decision’s “duty to protect” statute
(see Chapter 7)? How might whether or not Dr. Yeung’s state includes researchers under such a
statute influence Dr. Yeung’s ethical decision making? How might the fact that Dr. Yeung is a
research psychologist without training or licensure in clinical practice influence the ethical
decision? (Use citation.)
4. In addressing this dilemma, should Dr. Yeung consider how her decision may affect the
completion of her research (e.g., the confidentiality concerns of other participants)? (Use
citation.)
CASE STUDY WEEK 5
3
5. How are APA Ethical Standards 2.01f, 3.04, 3.06, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 8.01 relevant to this
case? Which other standards might apply? (Use citation.)
6. What are Dr. Yeung’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternative best
reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal standards, and
obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding
your decision? (Use citation.)
7. What steps should Dr. Yeung take to implement her decision and monitor its effect? (Use
citation.)
CASE STUDY WEEK 5
4
References
PSY-510 Contemporary and Ethical Issues in Psychology
Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to Protect
Directions: In a minimum of 50 words, for each question, thoroughly answer each of the
questions below regarding Case 4: Research on Intimate Partner Violence and the Duty to
Protect. Use one to two scholarly resources to support your answers. Use in-text citations, when
appropriate, according to APA formatting.
1. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of
the dilemma?
2. Who are the stakeholders and how will they be affected by how Dr. Yeung resolves this
dilemma?
3. Does this situation meet the standards set by the Tarasoff decision’s “duty to protect”
statute (see Chapter 7)? How might whether or not Dr. Yeung’s state includes researchers
under such a statute influence Dr. Yeung’s ethical decision making? How might the fact
that Dr. Yeung is a research psychologist without training or licensure in clinical practice
influence the ethical decision?
4. In addressing this dilemma, should Dr. Yeung consider how her decision may affect the
completion of her research (e.g., the confidentiality concerns of other participants)?
5. How are APA Ethical Standards 2.01f, 3.04, 3.06, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 8.01 relevant to
this case? Which other standards might apply?
6. What are Dr. Yeung’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternative
best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal
standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed
in Chapter 3) guiding your decision?
7. What steps should Dr. Yeung take to implement her decision and monitor its effect?
References:

Purchase answer to see full
attachment