Read Case Study One in the text

            This is a perfect ethical dilemma. The court had requested for a mental examination report of the offender from the psychologist to determine the severity of the punishment. In the assessment process, the psychologist discovers that the offender had killed another person. This puts the psychologist in a fix since he is guided by the ethics that he must not disclose client information to other entities. At the same time, he has to stick to what he was assigned to do and not to report the other offense.   This, therefore, leads to the ethical dilemma of reporting the offender or sticking to the objectives of the assessment. The APA Principles that help to frame the nature of the dilemma are Fidelity and responsibility, integrity and justice. On fidelity and responsibility, a psychologist must cultivate a professional and scientific atmosphere through trust, accountability as well as ethical considerations (Fisher, 2013). When it comes to integrity, the psychologist must engage in honest, transparent practices.  In this respect, the psychologist needs to address the issue of the second confession. When it comes to the justice principle, psychologists must prevent unjust practices and limits of their expertise.

How might Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence toward the death penalty influence his decision to offer a forensic diagnosis of intellectual disability? How might John’s confession or his comment about the boy waiting for the bus influence the decision? To what extent should these factors play a role in Dr. Romaro’s report?

            Dr. Romaro’s ambivalence toward the death penalty influenced his decision to offer a forensic diagnosis of intellectual disability because John had claimed to be innocent throughout his trial. Additionally, John’s attorney had challenged the death penalty claiming that John was intellectually disabled.  At the same time, a state in which John’s trial was conducted, people convicted of first-degree murder faced the death penalty. Hence, the argument of intellectual disability influenced Dr. Romaro’s decisions to carry out the assessment since intellectually disabled people were not held fully accountable for crimes.

            John’s confession about the boy waiting for the bus would influence the decision to influence Dr. Romaro’s decision from the fact that John found himself confessing without any coercion.  The fact that he cannot remember another fact about the boy he killed shows that he was not mentally stable. Hence, this can be informative to the psychologist to know that John had some intellectual problems.

            These factors can play a vital role in Dr. Romaro’s report because they can tell that John had commented more than one murder.  On one side, they reveal criminal recidivism while on the other hand; these factors can tell that in deed John had some intellectual problems.

How are APA Ethical Standards 2.0f, 3.06, 4.04, 4.05, 5.01, 9.01a and 9.06 relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?

            The standard 2.0f is relevant to this case in that while Dr. Romaro is assuming forensic roles, he must be reasonably familiar with judicial governing their roles. Hence, he must stick with what the judiciary had requested. The standard 3.06 is relevant to this case in that there might be a conflict of Interest on the part of Dr. Romaro.  Hence, he must refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, or other interests can impair their objectivity, competence or expose the person with whom the professional relationship exists to exploitation.

            The standard 4.04 is also applicable to this case in that this case demands minimization on privacy intrusion. In this respect, Dr. Romaro must keep the confession of killing another boy. The standard 4.05 is relevant in this case in that there are some disclosure issues. Despite the fact that the offender confessed another crime, Dr. Romaro can only disclose that confidential issues with the appropriate consent of the client. Disclosing the new confession must only be mandated by law (Gravetter& Forzano, 2009).

            The standard 5.01(a) is relevant to the case from the fact that Dr. Romaro must avoid false or deceptive statements. From the above case, there is a dilemma since the offender has not met the criteria. The psychologist must present this fact as the truth and not presenting false information. Standard 9.01 is also relevant to this case in that this case has a specific basis for assessments. As a psychologist, Dr. Romaro must base his opinions contained in recommendations, reports, and diagnostic statements. The 9.06 is also relevant in this case because this case involves interpretation of assessment results. While interpreting the assessment results, Dr. Romaro must account for the assessment purpose and test factors while indicating any limitations of the interpretations. The other standard which is relevant to this case is 1.02.   The reason is that this case has conflicts between Ethics and Law (Fisher, 2012). While the judiciary wants mental assessment report, the psychologist discovers another crime. Ethics dictate that he must keep it a confidential and on the other hand, it is a crime which is supposed to be reported.

What steps should Dr. Romaro take to implement his decision ethically and monitor its effect?

            Despite the fact that Dr. Romaro must stick on the assessments required by the court, he must professionally use the confessions given by John and incorporate them in his assessment. Therefore, he must eliminate all prejudices and assumptions that came from the confessions.  In the ethical dilemma presented, he must uphold high professionalism and eliminate any conflict of interest in the case.  He must, therefore, take John as a subject under study top come up with objective assessment.  Doing this can help him to determine John’s intellectual level.

           

References

Fisher, C. B. (2013): Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand      Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fisher, C. B. (2012): Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand      Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2009): Research methods for the behavioral sciences.           Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at Melda Research in nursing paper writing services if you need a similar paper you can place your order for Medicine Essay Writing.