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?