In the movie, 50/50, a number of ethical issues emerge with respect to a psychotherapist who is in training. Although story is based on a real life character, the young therapist is a cinematic fictional device. The therapist, Katherine, is played by Anna Kendrick. She has been assigned at the hospital facility to be the therapist for Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Adam has been diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer. Apparently, it is the hospital policy to involve the patient in ongoing therapy and counseling during cancer treatment and prior to surgery. During the first session Adam notes that Katherine looks fairly young and asks her age. She states that she is 24. He asks how many patients she has seen and he deduces that he is the third patient.
Donald A. Eisner, Ph.D., J.D.
Under Tarasoff and its progeny, the apparent ruling was that only an actual patient communication triggers a duty to warn a third party. However, what is the standard when a patient’s relative tells a psychotherapist about the serious threat of physical violence? Is this considered a patient communication? The trial court in two cases indicated that it is not. However, the California Court of Appeals in Ewing v. Goldstein and Ewing v. Northridge Hospital ruled that a communication from the patient’s immediate family falls within the meaning of California Civil Code Section 43.92. Hence, there is a significant expansion of the duty to warn. The implications for practicing psychotherapists are enormous. Among the risks is an enhanced exposure to either a breach of confidentiality or a wrongful death lawsuit.
Donald A. Eisner, Ph.D., J.D
Expert witnesses face daunting challenges during deposition and cross-examination at trial. The opposing attorney is attempting to impeach the credibility of the expert. Areas that may be pursued include: 1) bias—including whether has the expert has a conflict of interest or stake in the outcome of the case; 2) qualifications and ethics—including who is actually providing the testimony and whether they are qualified to do so; 3) invasion of privacy—Must tax returns be turned over to the opposing attorney? What intrusive questions need to be answered? 4) hypothetical and difficult questions—The cross-examining attorney attempts to rattle and unnerve the expert. The implications for not avoiding impeachment can be serious in that there can be criminal and civil actions as well as administrative sanctions brought against a negligent and/or unethical expert witness.
According to news reports, Casey Anthony will be receiving psychotherapy. Does she have mental disorder. One person who could answer that question was psychologist, Harry Krop. He has seem her over a period of 20 hours. His conclusion was that Ms. Anthony did not suffer from any mental disorder.
Recently, Dr. Krop was gently cross examined on the Dr. Drew Pinsky show HLN. After Dr. Krop was challenged about his conclusions, he returned tot he show and suggested that perhaps Ms. Casey Anthony may have some personality traits.
Abstract
Plagiarism in professional, academic, and research arenas appears to be escalating. This article elaborates the parameters of intentional and inadvertent plagiarism. The penalties and repercussions are quite significant with respect to whether an article or book is alleged to have been either intentionally or inadvertently plagiarized. There is an analysis of the signs and symptoms of both types of plagiarism. Further, the underlying causes or etiology is discussed. Lastly, the issue is whether there can be an accurate differential diagnosis between intentional and inadvertent plagiarism.
Background
