Introduction
Dealing with ethical dilemmas in professional practice, especially those based on close interaction with people, is a thorough problem. The proposed scenario discusses a case that occurred with an incarcerated individual in prison. In this scenario, I am a social worker who helps inmates optimize their post-release rehabilitation and more effectively return to society. However, one of the inmates I work with recently assaulted a guard and asked me to help fabricate evidence to free him from court punishment. The following paper is based on a detailed ethical examination of this scenario, identifying the key issues and relevant APA codes provisions applicable to this case.
Scenario
You have been facilitating a class at the prison to help prisoners find stability upon release. This rehabilitation work has allowed you to get to know many of the prisoners and network with many community resources that help convicts reestablish their lives after prison. In a recent trip to the prison, one of the prison’s requests that you evaluate them to “prove” they are not fit to stand trial for a recent prison incident. On the way out of the prison, you receive a phone call from the prosecutor’s office requesting your services to evaluate a prisoner (the same prisoner that just asked you for help) that assaulted a prison guard.
Analysis
In the scenario proposed for the study, there are several conflicts of interest related to my professional activities. First, the inmate asks me to “prove” his innocence or lack of involvement in the beating of the guard, that is, to knowingly violate the law of fair trial in order to save him. In the context of collaborating closely with the prisoner in question, the objectivity of my decision may be vulnerable because I will need to choose between honesty and a desire to help the prisoner (Reynolds et al., 2021). Second, the prosecutor’s office is asking me to provide a qualitative assessment of the inmate’s actions, on which the final verdict probably depends to a greater extent. This results in a situation in which I am psychologically pressured on both sides, with the result that I will not be able to provide objective testimony, knowingly or unknowingly taking the position of one of the parties to the conflict.
Another ethical problem that is not as evident is the principle of informed consent. If the evaluation of an inmate at the request of the prosecutor’s office takes place in the presence of the inmate, that is, I will have to talk to him about the situation and take notes, I must obtain his informed consent. The purpose of this consent is to fully inform the inmate of the purpose of this conversation so that he understands the possible consequences of his words, but also to be honest with me (Jansen, 2020). Obtaining informed consent ensures that I have not coerced the inmate into participating in this interview and that I have considered the inmate’s best interests, which will also protect my professional reputation.
The final ethical conflict in this situation is the potential loss of trust on the part of the inmate. Because my job is to provide therapeutic and rehabilitative services to inmates, I must enjoy their trust and set an example as an honest and socially responsible citizen. However, if the information shared with me in a trusting relationship is used against the inmate, and if the inmate learns of it, it is almost guaranteed to affect the level of trust between us (Northrop & Sadoff, 2013). As a result, further practice with this prisoner would prove questionable because he would not be able to trust me, and I would not be able to be unbiased in his direction. Thus, the critical ethical issues in this scenario include the potential loss of trust, the problem of obtaining informed consent, and the vulnerability of being unbiased in a two-party conflict.
Solution
To address this scenario, it is necessary to address some of the principles of the APA Code of Ethics. One of the paramount ones is the principle of Human Relations and harm avoidance #3.04 (APA, 2017). If the results of our assessment conversation affect the trustworthiness of the relationship between the inmate and me, I will harm him and be unable to provide further support. In addition, Conflict of Interest principle #3.06 is also appropriate because my actions may benefit one party to the conflict against the interests of the other party. Informed Consent principle #3.10 is also relevant to the current scenario, including that I would have to inform the inmate of a possible violation of Confidentiality principle #4.01.
The specific APA codes governing the professional activities of social workers and psychologists are generally much broader. They are all listed in the Ethical Principles for Psychologists and the Code of Conduct, which regulates ethical issues and essential patient and stakeholder communication (APA, 2017). Some of the most critical codes controlling professional practice include the requirement to be competent (#2.01), obtaining informed consent (#3.10), avoiding harm (#3.10), avoiding outside relationships with patients that may affect practice effects (#3.05), and respecting confidentiality (#4.01). These APA codes are crucial and can be seen as governing professional practice and behavior in psychology. Every practicing psychologist should be familiar with the Ethical Principles for Psychologists and the Code of Conduct and adhere to its principles.
Conclusion
The solution to this scenario must be within the scope of the Code of Ethics and not contrary to any of its provisions. Since there is a conflict of interest, as a professional, I must disclose my commitment to the APA Code (#1.03) and report potential ethical violations (#1.05). Given all of these ethical concerns and my professional role, it is ethical to refuse the prosecutor’s request to evaluate a prisoner’s actions and to function as his advocate or prosecutor. My impartiality, professional reputation, and trusted relationship in psychological practice could be vulnerable if I were to accept the prosecutor’s request and become an interested party in this conflict. Instead, I would suggest that the prosecutor’s office contact an independent party who has not previously had any relationship with the inmate. This solution would resolve all of the ethical dilemmas shown above and lead to a more effective conclusion to the conflict.
References
APA. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association. Web.
Jansen, L. A. (2020). Informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and unrealistic optimism. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 63(2), 359-373. Web.
Northrop, J. K., & Sadoff, R. L. (2013). Confidentiality and disclosure of the forensic examination. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 41(2), 302-303.
Reynolds, C. R., Altmann, R. A., & Allen, D. N. (2021). The problem of bias in psychological assessment. In C.R. Reynolds, R.A. Altmann, & D.N. Allen (Eds.), Mastering modern psychological testing (pp. 573-613). Springer.