Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Book ReviewBOOK REVIEWS

Ethical Practice in Forensic Psychology: A Systematic Model for Decision Making
Forensic Ethics and the Expert Witness

Robert M. Wettstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online December 2008, 36 (4) 595-598;
Robert M. Wettstein
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

By Shane S. Bush, Mary A. Connell, and Robert L. Denney. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2006. 196 pp. hard cover; $69.95 nonmembers; $49.95 members.

By Philip J. Candilis, Robert Weinstock, and Richard Martinez. New York: Springer Science, 2007. 211 pp. $49.95 hard cover.

Ethics in forensic mental health work is of concern to practitioners and academics. A recent issue of The Journal (Vol. 36, No. 2) was largely devoted to the 25-year anniversary, and 2007 presentation, of Alan Stone's1,2 provocative challenge to the field to develop appropriate ethics guidelines; or else, to abstain from court testimony or forensic work altogether. The two volumes named above, one on forensic psychology and another on forensic psychiatry, reflect the growing importance of this subject. Perhaps the continued interest reflects or reveals many forensic practitioners’ uneasiness about the ethics and appropriateness of much of forensic work, in contrast to their confidence regarding the ethical status of their clinical work with patients.

These books approach the subject in vastly different ways. There are marked differences in discipline, practicality, thoughtfulness, theory, sophistication, intended audience, presentation, and readability.

Ethical Practice in Forensic Psychology was published by the American Psychological Association and coauthored by three psychologists: two are neuropsychologists, and the third focuses on family law. The authors state that the book is “intended to serve as a text for forensic psychology students, trainees, and practitioners” including “career forensic psychologists.” The book contains seven relatively brief chapters including: “The Interface of Law and Psychology: An Overview,” “The Referral,” “Collection and Review of Information,” “The Evaluation,” “Documentation of Findings and Opinions,” “Testimony and Termination,” and “Addressing Ethical Misconduct.”

Perhaps the most useful chapter is the Overview, in which the authors present their “Proposed Model of Ethical Decision Making in Forensic Psychology.” The authors formulate these eight steps: identify the problem; consider the significance of the context and setting; identify and use ethics and legal resources; consider personal beliefs and values; develop possible solutions to the problem; consider the potential consequences of various solutions; choose and implement a course of action; and assess the outcome and implement changes as needed. The authors use six brief case vignettes to illustrate applications of their proposed model.

The text draws heavily from the 2002 American Psychological Association's “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,” which in turn adopts the principalist biomedical ethics paradigm of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress published in Principles of Biomedical Ethics.3 Their approach focuses on the four principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and respect for autonomy. Although the Code of Conduct's General Principles are aspirational, and the subsequent Ethical Standards are more proscriptive, these documents are not centered on forensic activities. The 1991 “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists” are also used in the text. Because the primary reference point for the text is the Code of Ethics, the volume lacks depth of analysis. At times, this brings a cookbook feel to the discussion.

The authors essentially do not present or discuss forensic ethics theory, given their strict tie to the Beauchamp and Childress principles of biomedical ethics. Without reflection, they stretch beneficence to be subsumed under justice. Cultural concerns in forensic evaluations are mentioned, again with reference to the Psychologists’ Code of Conduct. There is no regard for the historical background of these ethics. There is a brief discussion of forms of evaluator bias in terms of heuristics, but the authors ignore many of the forms of bias described in 2004 by Thomas Gutheil and Robert Simon in Psychiatric Annals.4 Objectivity, rather than striving for objectivity—the AAPL Ethics requirement—is cited as the goal of forensic evaluation. Harm to evaluees is reformulated as “unjust harm” to accommodate the negative outcome for some forensic evaluees in the course of serving justice. Generally, there is little that is controversial in this work, given its superficiality and conformity with the Code of Conduct.

The authors’ intended audience and reference point is psychology, not psychiatry, social work, or nursing. There is a striking omission of discussions and citations from the forensic psychiatry literature. For example, the only citation from The Journal is the 1995 edition of the “AAPL Ethical Guidelines.” The book contains a discussion of the use of psychological tests in forensic settings, including the appropriateness of obtaining informed consent before evaluating deception and symptom validity testing for malingering. However, the authors do not examine the ethics involving forensic assessment instruments, assistance to military or law enforcement, and capital punishment. Many aspects of criminal forensic work are omitted. The discussion of report writing is superficial.

It is unclear why the authors limited the breadth and depth of the text, which is relatively brief and succinct. In contrast, many of the law and psychology volumes published by the American Psychological Association are quite substantial. At the end, I was left with the impression that I had not learned a great deal.

On the other hand, the text is highly readable, although the analyses are often repetitive. The authors appropriately emphasize the need for self-analysis, review of the relevant forensic literature, and consultation with knowledgeable forensic experts. They adopt an aspirational approach, encouraging forensic evaluators to improve their forensic knowledge and skills continually. They suggest that forensic evaluators periodically share their work with a colleague in informal peer review, but they omit the utility of organization peer review activity.

The volume is practical, and at times the authors offer reasonable advice on ethics to the reader (e.g., avoid charging higher fees for testimony, avoid preliminary reports, and forgo treating the forensic evaluee). They distinguish the ethics obligations of the trial consultant from those of the evaluator. And I appreciated the last chapter on dealing with the perceived unethical conduct of opposing or treating experts, a subject that is too often ignored. Nevertheless, most experienced forensic clinicians, and readers of The Journal will be better served by reading the volume by Candilis and colleagues, to which we now turn.

The three authors of Forensic Ethics and the Expert Witness are recognized forensic psychiatrists with a substantial interest in forensic ethics. The approach to ethics theory taken here was introduced by the authors in their earlier publications5–7 in which they champion and incorporate a contextualized, narrative approach into the so-called standard paradigm of forensic ethics offered by Appelbaum.8 The latter approach identifies such core forensic mental health values as truth telling, respect for persons, and justice. However, Candilis et al. seek to broaden the Appelbaum theory significantly by ambitiously encompassing Ezra Griffith's concern,9 expressed in The Journal in 1998, for cultural considerations, narrative, and other matters, in an effort to resolve the dual-agency dilemmas of forensic work. Their approach to forensic ethics is not merely minimalist, but aspirational.

The book contains three sections: The “Introduction and Overview,” containing two chapters; “Approaches that Guide Ethical Behavior,” containing three chapters; and “Applying Theory to Practice.” An appendix contains the codes of ethics of four forensic organizations.

The first section is a general overview of forensic mental health practice. The authors provide an interesting discussion and contrast the views of Bernard Diamond and Seymour Pollack, in a presentation of this material that I have not seen before. Candilis and colleagues also introduce the Appelbaum theory of forensic ethics, with organizational statements of ethics from the APA and AAPL. Published opinions from the AAPL Committee on Ethics (1995) are reproduced in the book for unconvincing reasons. Next, 10 forensic ethics cases from several disciplines are presented and briefly discussed.

Section Two is the heart of the book. The authors draw on history, philosophy, biomedical ethics, sociology, anthropology, and law when they introduce ethics theories and models. Chapter Five introduces the concept of “forensic professionalism.” The authors opine that a narrow view of forensic ethics and a commensurate forensic role as an objective technician “forgets its roots in the professional values and responsibilities of the health care tradition” (p 117). In support of their argument of an expanded forensic duty, the authors briefly present two cases of court-ordered forensic evaluations of women, one of which has been published.4 The evaluator in each case assumes a limited therapeutic role beyond that of forensic evaluator—in one case, identifying a treatment program for the criminal defendant-evaluee, and in the other, intervening when the evaluee's family struggles with her end-of-life decision.

The last and longest chapter departs substantially in format from the earlier material. Using the vehicle of a 1998 article in Current Opinion in Psychiatry by Alfred Freedman and Abraham Halpern10 on psychiatric involvement in capital punishment, the authors dissect the arguments and present their analysis of appropriate and inappropriate ethical reasoning. This is by no means a cookbook formula by which forensic experts can resolve ethics dilemmas, but an academic discussion.

Of interest, except for two pages at the end of the volume, the authors do not return to the material presented in the first five chapters to summarize their thinking and to consider the next steps for the field, whether provided by these authors or others.

Readers may challenge the authors’ attempt to incorporate narrative ethics, clinical ethics, historical traditions, personal concerns, and others into a new forensic ethic. They write, “Our balancing approach weighs as many approaches as possible” (p 157). They provide only two case examples to support their expanded forensic ethics theory and role. Their wish to include clinical medicine theory and its corresponding duty in forensics may be more applicable to the problem of the forensic evaluator who occasionally strays into “clinical-like” activity, than to the therapist who is asked to conduct a simultaneous forensic evaluation. We may wonder why a new and greatly expanded theory of forensic ethics is necessary to deal with an outlier forensic case.

I was expecting a discussion of hard cases in the boundary and dual-relationship literature in psychology and psychiatry, but it never appeared. Many have written about the ethics and boundary problems in clinical practice in geographically rural, minority, and military communities.11–13 Consider dilemmas faced by a military psychiatrist on an aircraft carrier who is asked to provide a routine urine drug screen witnessed by a current patient.13 Ofer Zur, in Dual Relationships and Psychotherapy, argued that the existing boundary literature is saturated with the view that dual relationships are “depraved” in contrast to the reality.14 Candilis and colleagues overlooked this contention, which supports their own.

Although the authors preach self-reflection and honesty for forensic experts, they fail to describe the limitations of and problems with their own approach, which tries to include all others. The importance of ethics theory has been described by Beauchamp, who noted that ethics theory (i.e., moral philosophy) has become progressively disconnected from practice in biomedical ethics which is increasingly influenced by law, policy, empirical study, government policies, and international guidelines.15 Also, Sidney Bloch and Stephen Green in a 2006 article in the British Journal of Psychiatry contend that psychiatry generally lacks consensus for an ethics framework.16 Should we consider incorporating a broader notion of respect for persons that approximates or incorporates their perspectives? What is the value of a comprehensive perhaps overinclusive forensic ethic and how would we apply it? Of course, all perceptions, interpretations, and expert opinions are value laden, context dependent, and reflective of one's biases and countertranferences. But is this really anything new, and where does it then take us? Does this expanded theory of ethics help us in better setting the boundary of appropriate conduct?

This is a sophisticated, intense, and academic volume most useful to those interested in theories of forensic ethics rather than in solving a particular ethics-based dilemma in practice. The chapters are not self-contained, perhaps because there are three coauthors and an identified editor or because of the nature of the material itself. As Appelbaum aptly notes in the Foreword, the book “is not a guide to action. It will not tell a forensic psychiatrist what to do when faced with a particular dilemma. Rather, it is a guide to thought.” For those readers looking elsewhere, Laura Roberts and Jinger Hoop published Professionalism and Ethics, a useful and thoughtful volume with both theoretical and practical information, but it is not centered on forensic work.17

Helpful remedies could have included a preface to the book to orient and guide the reader. Also, improved transitions at the beginning and end of each chapter and section, and a summary chapter would be welcome additions to this text. A glossary of ethics terms, perhaps similar to the one offered by Roberts and Hoop,15 would have been useful.

This is not light reading for the beach; its density, at times, detracts from its accessibility. The language is lofty, and there are many impenetrable paragraphs. The editing in the discussion of ethics theory is fragmented, and at times the reader will struggle. Also, the last chapter deviates from the earlier content and organization. It seems as though it was written by another author or for another publication. The prose, when presented in a question-and-answer format, is more direct and digestible.

Although the organization, editing, and language detract from the presentation of the argument, I can applaud the authors’ ambitiousness and effort. I look forward to subsequent publications extending and supporting their work.

  • American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

References

  1. ↵
    Stone AA: The ethical boundaries of forensic psychiatry: a view from the ivory tower. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 12:209–19, 1984
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    Stone AA: Ethics in forensic psychiatry: re-imagining the wasteland after 25 years. Presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Miami Beach, FL, October 19, 2007
  3. ↵
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF: Principles of Biomedical Ethics (ed 5). New York: Oxford University Press, 2001
  4. ↵
    Gutheil TG, Simon RI: Avoiding bias in expert testimony. Psychiatr Ann 34:260–70, 2004
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    Candilis PJ, Martinez R, Dording C: Principles and narrative in forensic psychiatry: toward a robust view of professional role. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 29:167–73, 2001
    OpenUrlAbstract
  6. Martinez R, Candilis PJ: Commentary: toward a unified theory of personal and professional ethics. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 33:382–5, 2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Weinstock R: Commentary: a broadened conception of forensic psychiatric ethics. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 29:180–5, 2001
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    Appelbaum PS: A theory of ethics for forensic psychiatry. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 25:233–47, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Griffith EEH: Ethics in forensic psychiatry: a cultural response to Stone and Appelbaum. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 26:171–84, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Freedman AM, Halpern AL: A crisis in the ethical and moral behavior of psychiatrists. Curr Opin Psychiatry 11:1–15, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    Roberts LW, Battaglia J, Epstein RS: Frontier ethics: mental health care needs and ethical dilemmas in rural communities. Psychiatr Serv 50:497–503, 1999
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. Turchik JA, Karpenko V, Hammers D, et al: Practical and ethical assessment issues in rural, impoverished, and managed care settings. Prof Psychol: Res Pr 38:158–68, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    Johnson WB, Ralph J, Johnson SJ: Managing multiple roles in embedded environments: the case of aircraft carrier psychology. Prof Psychol: Res Pr 36:73–81, 2005
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    Zur O: How consensus regarding the prohibition of dual relationships has been contrived, in Dual Relationships and Psychotherapy. Edited by Lazarus A, Zur O. New York: Springer Publishing, 2002, pp 449–62
  15. ↵
    Beauchamp TL: Does ethical theory have a future in bioethics? J Law Medicine Ethics 32:209–17, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Bloch S, Green SA: An ethical framework for psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 188:7–12, 2006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Roberts LW, Hoop JG: Professionalism and Ethics: Self-study Guide for Mental Health Professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 2008
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 36 (4)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 36, Issue 4
December 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ethical Practice in Forensic Psychology: A Systematic Model for Decision MakingForensic Ethics and the Expert Witness
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Ethical Practice in Forensic Psychology: A Systematic Model for Decision Making
Forensic Ethics and the Expert Witness
Robert M. Wettstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2008, 36 (4) 595-598;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Ethical Practice in Forensic Psychology: A Systematic Model for Decision Making
Forensic Ethics and the Expert Witness
Robert M. Wettstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2008, 36 (4) 595-598;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Postconcussion Syndrome: The New Evidence Base for Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Assessment of Malingered Neuropsychological Deficits
  • Trials of a Forensic Psychologist: A Casebook
Show more BOOK REVIEWS

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2022 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law